Kolodziejczyk Dariusz. The Crimean Khanate and Poland-Lithuania (ENG)
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
4 part one—chapter one
them through Mongol lieutenants (daruġas), and order them to assist
Mongol ocials (basqaqs) in the collection of tribute.
e vast empire, created by Genghis Khan, preserved its unity for
mere two generations. Further expansion of Genghis Khan’s grand-
sons, Batu in Eastern Europe, Hulagu in the Middle East, and Kublai
in China, rendered virtually impossible to control by one ruler the ter-
ritory extending from Hungary to Vietnam. Imprecise rules of inheri-
tance, allowing any Genghisid prince to claim supreme authority, made
things still worse. In fact, already under Batu Khan (r. 1227–1255/56)
the western part of the Mongol Empire, consisting of Eastern Europe,
Western Siberia, and Northern Khwarezm, enjoyed full autonomy,
and Batu’s successors regarded themselves as sovereign rulers. eir
state came to be known in historiography as the Golden Horde or the
ulus (“people” or “patrimony”) of Djochi,
1
while the contemporaries
simply referred to it as the Great Horde (ulu orda).
In the 14th century, the court culture of the Golden Horde under-
went gradual Islamization, accompanied by Turkization.
2
In the west-
ern provinces of the Genghisid empire, Mongols constituted a tiny
minority while Turks, especially those speaking western, Kipchak dia-
lects, prevailed both in the khan’s army and among the conquered
inhabitants of the Black Sea steppes. With time, Turkic and Turkied
inhabitants of the Golden Horde came to be known as Tatars.
Following the death of Djanibek Khan in 1357, the Golden Horde
entered a prolonged dynastic crisis. Numerous pretenders fought for
the throne, bidding for internal and external support. ough the
conviction that only a Genghisid prince could claim the khan’s title
held strongly deep into the early modern era, successful commanders,
who adopted more modest titles of emirs, such as Mamay (d. 1382)
or Edigü (d. 1419), were oen more powerful than the khans. e
1
Djochi was Genghis Khan’s oldest son; due to his premature death, his patrimony
was directly inherited by his son, Batu.
2
is opinion was contested by Arkadij Grigor’ev, who maintained that Mongol
had been the ocial language of the Golden Horde at least until 1380 while Turkic had
been used by the khan’s chancery merely in communication with foreign courts; cf.
idem, “Ocial’nyj jazyk Zolotoj Ordy XIII–XIV vv.,” in: Tjurkologičeskij sbornik (1977)
(Moscow, 1981): 81–89, esp. p. 89. Yet, in a more recent publication the same author
admits that the shi from Mongol to Turkic had already occurred in 1350s, or even
earlier in the chanceries of the Horde’s dignitaries, who could not claim a Genghisid
descent; cf. idem, Sbornik xanskix jarlykov russkim mitropolitam. Istočnikovedčeskij
analiz zolotoordynskix dokumentov (St. Petersburg, 2004), pp. 209–210.
genghisid legacy: shaping eastern europe (1240–1523) 5
most successful among such non-Genghisid “imposters” was Timur,
or Tamerlane (d. 1405). Apart from creating an empire of his own in
the former Genghisid domains in Central Asia, he was to largely inu-
ence the events on the Volga. In ca. 1376, Timur helped a Genghisid
refugee pretender, Tokhtamısh, to ascend the throne of the Golden
Horde.
3
First Lithuanian encounters with Tatars
It was precisely in the rst years of the dynastic crisis in the Golden
Horde, when the grand duke of Lithuania, Algirdas (r. 1345–1377),
expanded his principality by annexing the southern Ruthenian lands
of Podolia and Kiev. In 1362, he cemented his conquest by defeating
local Tatar troops at the Synja voda (today Synjuxa), a le tributary of
the Boh river. Yet, a Polish historian convincingly argued that Algir-
das would not risk an open confrontation with the Golden Horde and
his conquests might have been tacitly authorized by the Horde’s de
facto ruler, Mamay, who regarded the Lithuanian neighbor as a use-
ful ally against Muscovy as well as the emir’s domestic opponents.
Indeed, having conquered Podolia, the Lithuanian rulers continued to
send a tribute from this province to the khans until the 15th century.
4
According to a recent hypothesis, Algirdas might have even received a
formal (now lost) yarlıq from Mamay, conrming his possession of the
southern Ruthenian lands in return for the payment of the tribute.
5
Aer the death of Algirdas, his son Jogaila (or Jagiełło) inherited
the Lithuanian throne. His reign was initially frustrated by his uncle
Kęstutis and then, aer the latter’s imprisonment and murder (1382),
3
Cf. a tting commentary by Bertold Spuler: die Chane, gut hundert Jahre lang die
wirklichen Herren in Osteuropa, waren zu Schützlingen fremder Machthaber herab-
gesunken, in idem, Die Goldene Horde. Die Mongolen in Ruβland 1223–1502 (Wies-
baden, 1965), pp. 121–122.
4
Stefan Maria Kuczyński, Sine Wody (Warsaw, 1935), pp. 55–57. In 1401, the
Dominican monks in Kamjanec’ [Kamieniec Podolski] were exempted from a num-
ber of taxes save the tributum artharorum, which they were still obliged to pay;
if even the clergymen were not exempted, it implies that ordinary subjects paid this
tax, too; cf. Adam Chmiel (ed.), Zbiór dokumentów znajdujących się w Bibliotece hr.
Przezdzieckich w Warszawie (Cracow, 1890), p. 11.
5
Feliks Šabul’do, “Čy buv jarlyk Mamaja na ukrajins’ki zemli? (Do postanovky
problemy),” Zapysky Naukovoho tovarystva imeni Ševčenka, vol. 243 (L’viv, 2002):
301–317.
6 part one—chapter one
by Kęstutis’ son, Vytautas. In 1385, the position of Jogaila was sub-
stantially strengthened as he was invited to the Polish throne.
6
In
1386, Jogaila was baptized as the last pagan ruler in Europe, adopted
the Christian name of Vladislaus and was crowned in Cracow. e
following year witnessed the establishment of Latin Catholic hierar-
chy in Lithuania and introduction of Christianity to Lithuanian sub-
jects (admittedly, most of these subjects were Orthodox Ruthenians
who did not need to be introduced to Christianity). Jogaila’s royal
coronation did not discourage Vytautas from another rebellion in
1389. Finally, the two cousins reached reconciliation in 1392. While
Vytautas acknowledged Jogaila (now Vladislaus) as his suzerain and
the supreme ruler of both Poland and Lithuania, he was elevated to
the post of grand duke and secured autonomous rule in Lithuania
for life.
e following years brought a full-scale Lithuanian engagement
in the southeast. e ambitious policy of Tokhtamısh, who avenged
Mamay’s defeat at Kulikovo Pole (1380) by restoring Muscovian obe-
dience to the Horde (1382) and then invaded Central Asia, was frus-
trated by his former patron. In 1391, Timur dethroned Tokhtamısh,
but the latter managed to regain his throne. In 1393, Tokhtamısh sent
his famous yarlıq to Jogaila, written on 20 May (8 Redjeb 795 A.H.) in
a camp on the Don river.
7
Having announced his victory over internal
enemies, the khan pronounced his wish to keep friendly relations with
Jogaila and promote mutual trade. Yet, he also required the latter to
“collect incomes from the lands [or peoples] that belong to us” (bizge
baqar ėllerning çıqışların çıqarub) and send them to the Horde. e
yarlıq refers to earlier correspondence between the two rulers, whose
contents are unknown as it is not preserved. erefore, it is impossible
to resolve whether Tokhtamısh’s demand to send him tribute was a
6
Polish eastern expansion began in the 14th century. In the years 1340–1366,
Poland annexed the Ruthenian principality of Halyč (Galicia) and in 1387 Moldavia
became a Polish vassal. e Polish lords, who invited Jogaila to the throne hoped
that this move would result not merely in a union, but incorporation of Lithuania to
Poland. Before ascending the throne, Jogaila had to marry Jadwiga Anjou, a female
descendent of the Polish royal Piast dynasty.
7
e yarlıq, recorded in Uighur script and composed in Khwarezmian language
containing various Kipchak Turkic elements, is preserved in Warsaw, Archiwum
Główne Akt Dawnych [hereaer, AGAD], Dokumenty pergaminowe, no. 5612. It is
published in facsimile along with an Arabic script transcription and Russian transla-
tion in Jarlyk xana Zolotoj Ordy Toxtamyša k pol’skomu korolju Jagajlu 1392–1393
goda. Edited by M. Obolen’skij (Kazan, 1850).
genghisid legacy: shaping eastern europe (1240–1523) 7
novelty or, quite possibly, reected a former custom, perhaps dating
from the times of Algirdas and Mamay.
8
What is clear is that the trib-
ute was expected not from the whole of Lithuania (and certainly not
from Poland), but from the lands that had previously belonged to the
Golden Horde, namely the southern Ruthenian provinces conquered
by Algirdas.
In 1395, Timur again invaded the Golden Horde, destroyed its
capital of Saray on the Volga, and replaced Tokhtamısh with another
Genghisid prince, Timur Qutlug. e latter was supported by a pow-
erful Nogay emir, Edigü. Defeated and humiliated, Tokhtamısh took
refuge in Lithuania along with his family and a number of followers.
His sore condition, referred to by a telling phrase “when his horse was
growing sweaty [beneath him]” (Ruth. koly kon’ eho potnyj byl), and
the assistance extended to him by Vytautas were to form a histori-
cal basis of “eternal friendship,” invoked in the future correspondence
between Vilnius and the Crimean khans, who regarded Tokhtamısh
as their legal ancestor.
In 1397, Tokhtamısh concluded a treaty with Vytautas and prob-
ably issued a yarlıq that is not preserved, but whose contents were
convincingly reconstructed by Antoni Prochaska. In return for mili-
tary assistance, the exiled khan conrmed Vytautas in his holding of
all southern Ruthenian lands that had once belonged to the Golden
Horde. Prochaska’s assumption that Vytautas was required to pay
tribute from these lands, is rather disputable.
9
Still, even assuming that
the tribute issue was absent, one should ask what benet could Vytau-
tas draw from this treaty? In return for the grant of the lands that he
already possessed, bestowed by a refugee pretender, he was expected to
engage in a risky military adventure. A Ruthenian chronicler put into
Vytautas’ lips a statement reecting his calculations: “we will set out to
8
Cf. n. 5 above.
9
Prochaska strengthens his argument by the fact that in 1401 a tribute for the Tatars
was collected in Podolia (cf. n. 4 above) and by invoking the yarlıq from 1507, in which
Mengli Giray reportedly admonished Sigismund: “you should make no excuses and
you should pay levies and tribute;” see Antoni Prochaska, “Z Witoldowych dziejów:
I. Układ Witolda z Tochtamyszem 1397 r.,” Przegląd Historyczny 15 (1912): 259–264,
esp. p. 263. e rst argument invites consideration, although one can argue that in
1401, following the Lithuanian defeat of 1399, a tribute was paid not to Tokhtamısh
but to his victorious opponent. e second argument results from Prochaska’s mis-
reading as the quoted order is addressed not to Sigismund but to the inhabitants of the
lands granted with the yarlıq, whereas the khan orders them to obey the Lithuanian
ruler and pay him [emphasis mine-DK] due taxes; cf. Document 8, n. 37.
8 part one—chapter one
subdue the Tatar land, defeat Khan Timur Qutlug, take his kingdom
and divide his wealth and property, and we will put Khan Tokhtamısh
on his throne in the Horde, and in Caa, in Azov, in the Crimea, in
Astrakhan, in the Trans-Yaik Horde,
10
in the entire seashore, and in
Kazan; and this all will be ours and the khan will be ours.”
11
In 1397, Vytautas and Tokhtamısh led a common expedition, reach-
ing as far as the Don river. In 1398, the allies directed their campaign
towards the Black Sea shore and even invaded the Crimea. Several cas-
tles, then founded by Vytautas between the lower Boh and the lower
Dniester, were to serve as reminders of his grandiose plans for another
century. All these plans were dashed in August 1399, when Lithua-
nian troops, supported by Tokhtamısh’s Tatar followers and Polish
volunteers led by the palatine of Cracow, Spytek from Melsztyn, were
routed by Edigü and Timur Qutlug in the battle on the Vorskla river,
a le tributary of the Dnieper. Spytek was killed, Tokhtamısh found
another refuge in Siberia, where he was reached by death in ca. 1406,
and Vytautas was forced to renew his bonds of vassalage with Jogaila
and Poland.
12
Although his “great plan” collapsed, in the following years Vytautas
expanded Lithuanian borders to the east, successfully competing with
Moscow for the suzerainty over the Ruthenian lands. Neither did he
resign from supporting the sons of Tokhtamısh in their claims for the
throne. One of them, Djalaleddin, participated in 1410 in the Polish-
Lithuanian battle against the Teutonic Order at Grunwald,
13
and two
10
Named aer the river Yaik [today Žajyq in Kazakh or Ural in Russian].
11
“Patriaršaja ili Nikonovskaja letopis’,” in: Polnoe sobranie russkix letopisej, vol. 11
(Moscow, 1965 = reprint of the 1897 edition), p. 172; also quoted in Boris Grekow and
Aleksandr Jakubovskij, Zolotaja Orda i eë padenie, pp. 381–382.
12
e question, to what extent was Vytautas independent from Jogaila in his east-
ern policy, has been heavily biased by nationalist historiographies. Many Lithuanian,
but also Ukrainian (Hruševskyj) historians extolled Vytautas for his striving to restore
Lithuanian independence, sometimes regarding Jogaila as a mere traitor of the Lithua-
nian “national cause.” On the other hand, Polish historians (Prochaska, Kolankowski)
oen patronized Vytautas, regarding him as a “good warrior” but “weak politician,”
able at most to realize the plans drawn by his more sophisticated cousin; for a
more critical treatment of this issue, see Michał Żwan, “Stosunki litewsko-tatarskie
za czasów Witolda, w. ks. Litwy,” Ateneum Wileńskie 7 (1930): 529–601, esp. pp.
530–533. In a recent study by Jan Tyszkiewicz, again Jogaila’s diplomatic skills (and
Vytautas’ lack of them) are stressed, though the author admits that the matter is
disputable; see idem, Tatarzy na Litwie i w Polsce. Studia z dziejów XIII–XVIII w.
(Warsaw, 1989), p. 121.
13
In the German historiography known as the battle of Tannenberg.
genghisid legacy: shaping eastern europe (1240–1523) 9
years later successfully ascended the throne of the Golden Horde. Yet,
any plans to build a lasting Lithuanian inuence on the Volga were
frustrated by internal ghting within the Horde. Between 1412 and
1419, four sons of Tokhtamısh competed for the throne, ghting each
other. In 1418, even powerful Edigü was forced to look for refuge in
the Crimea, and in 1419 two old enemies, Vytautas and Edigü, reached
reconciliation.
14
In the meantime, thousands of disenchanted followers
of Tokhtamısh settled in Lithuania, forming the community of Lithu-
anian Tatars, whose descendants live today in Lithuania, Belarus, and
Poland.
15
e prestige of Vytautas among the Tatars is conrmed by the rela-
tion of Gilbert de Lannoy, an envoy of King Henry V of England, who
traveled in 1421 to Constantinople through Poland, Lithuania, the
Black Sea steppe and the Crimea.
16
Until his death in 1430, Vytautas
continued to play his role of a “khan maker.” When the new khan of
the Golden Horde, Ulug Muhammed, was ousted in 1424, Vytautas
oered him refuge and helped to regain his throne three years later.
e disputed collapse of the Golden Horde
Most textbooks teach us that in the early 15th century the Golden
Horde entered a terminal crisis that led to its complete demise by 1502.
On its ruins, new khanates arose, namely those of Kazan, Astrakhan,
Sibir, and the Crimea. Yet, the issue is not so simple. Ulug Muhammed,
who had claimed the throne of the Horde from 1419, was ousted sev-
eral times by his rivals, and in 1445 arrived at Kazan. is date is
oen regarded as the beginning of the Khanate of Kazan. However,
Ulug Muhammed never signed his resignation from the throne of the
Golden Horde! He treated himself as the only legal khan, though he
controlled merely a part of the Horde’s territory.
14
For a somewhat confused chronology, cf. Spuler, Die Goldene Horde, pp. 147–
154; and Żwan, “Stosunki litewsko-tatarskie,” pp. 555–573.
15
e term “Lipka Tatars” is derived from the ancient Kipchak Turkish term Lipqa
(or Libqa), referring to Lithuania; cf. Document 20, passim; and Zygmunt Abrahamo-
wicz, “Lipka,” e Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd edition [hereaer, EI
2
], vol. 5 (Leiden,
1986): 765–767.
16
Gilbert de Lannoy i jego podróże. Edited by J. Lelewel (Brussels, 1843), pp.
64–83.
10 part one—chapter one
Ulug Muhammed’s archrival, Küchük Muhammed (d. 1459), le two
sons, Ahmed and Mahmud,
17
the latter one regarded as the founder
of the Khanate of Astrakhan. In his recent study, Il’ja Zajcev chal-
lenges this view arguing that at least until 1502 the rulers of Astrakhan
regarded themselves as the rulers of the Golden Horde, treating their
seat on the lower Volga as the base for future [re]conquests. erefore,
according to Zajcev, we can speak of the Khanate of Astrakhan only
aer 1502.
18
Similar arguments hold for the Crimean Khanate. Judging by mili-
tary power, the Giray khans could not initially compete with stronger
rivals, but they soon entered the game, eventually claiming hereditary
rights not only to the Black Sea steppe, northern Caucasus, Kazan and
Astrakhan, but even Siberia as late as 1654!
19
In 1991, Leslie Collins
published a very important article that is still largely overlooked in
historiography.
20
Discussing the events of 1502, when according to
common wisdom the Great Horde (the term used for the later Golden
Horde) was crushed by the Crimean Khanate, Collins argued that in
fact the Horde was not destroyed but strengthened and augmented.
Mengli Giray simply took over most of the subjects and territories
from his distant Genghiside cousin, Sheikh Ahmed.
21
e Girays’ con-
scious claim to the heritage of the Golden Horde is expressed in the
oath of the Crimean envoy taken in Lithuania by the end of 1506, in
which his lord is referred to as the ruler “of the two hordes: the Trans-
Volgine [i.e., the Great Horde] and of Perekop [i.e., the Crimean
Horde].”
22
e program of Mengli Giray was continued by his son,
Mehmed Giray, who aimed to control the whole Volga basin. In the
latter’s ocial intitulatio the Crimea was not even mentioned as he
17
e descendants of Ahmed and Mahmud were archenemies of the Girays; see
Document 10, n. 7.
18
Il’ja Zajcev [Ilia Zaitsev], “e Khanate of Astrakhan,” in: e Turks, vol. 2: Middle
Ages. Edited by H. Güzel, C. Oğuz, and O. Karatay (Ankara, 2002), pp. 848–853. For
a more detailed argumentation, see idem, Astraxanskoe xanstvo, pp. 30–62.
19
See Document 64.
20
Leslie Collins, “On the Alleged ‘Destruction’ of the Great Horde in 1502,” in:
Manzikert to Lepanto. e Byzantine World and the Turks, 1071–1571. Papers given
at the Nineteenth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Birmingham, March 1985.
Edited by A. Bryer and M. Ursinus (Amsterdam, 1991) = Byzantinische Forschungen
16 (1991): 361–399.
21
On Sheikh Ahmed, the grandson of Küchük Muhammed, see Document 9, n. 27.
22
See Document 7.
genghisid legacy: shaping eastern europe (1240–1523) 11
was declared the ruler of all the Mongols (barça Moġul padişahı),
23
whereas the documents of his 17th-century successors referred to the
khans as the rulers “of the Great Horde, the great country and the
Crimean throne” (uluġ orda uluġ yurtnıŋ ve taht-i Qırımnıŋ), clearly
showing the ideological priorities, with the geographic reference to the
Crimea preceded by more grandiose titles. With the Russian conquests
of Kazan (1552), Astrakhan (1556), and Sibir (1582–1598), the khan-
ate of the Crimean Girays remained the only Genghisid remnant of
the Golden Horde. If we acknowledged the legal claims of the Girays,
we would no longer discuss the collapse of the Golden Horde at the
turn of the 15th century, but its impressive survival for another three
centuries, although on a diminished territory.
24
e rise of the Giray khanate in the Crimea and the yarlıq
of Hadji Giray for Lithuania
Hadji Giray
25
traced his origin from Togha Timur, a younger brother
of Batu. His father, Giyaseddin, supported Tokhtamısh and probably
perished in the battle of Vorskla. According to a tradition, recorded
in the 16th century, the future Crimean khan was born as a refugee in
Lithuania near the castle of Trakai and owed his throne to Vytautas.
26
Admittedly, his rst eort to secure the Crimean throne occurred dur-
ing Vytautas’ lifetime in 1428, but he had to wait another 13 years until
securing his power in 1441.
27
By that time, he had repeatedly seeked
23
See Document 20.
24
Uli Schamiloglu recently proposed to refer to the entire period of Genghisid rule
in Western Eurasia, lasting from the 15th till the 18th century, as the “Later Golden
Horde;” see idem, “e Golden Horde,” in: e Turks, vol. 2, pp. 819–834, esp. p. 833.
25
e nickname Giray (alternatively pronounced in the Crimea as Kerey, Kirey,
Gerey, or Girey) probably originates from the tribal aliation of Hadji’s tutor (atalıq),
who belonged to the Kerey tribe. e future khan adopted this name out of respect,
and later on it was adopted by all dynasty members; cf. Halil Inalcık, “Girāy,” EI
2
, vol. 2
(Leiden, 1965): 1112–1114, esp. p. 1112.
26
Michalonis Lituani De moribus Tartarorum, Lituanorum et Moschorum fragmina
X (Basle, 1615), p. 3 [reprinted in: Mykolas Lietuvis, Apie totorių, lietuvių ir maskvėnų
papročius dešimt įvairaus istorinio turinio fragmentų (Vilnius, 1966)].
27
e last date was established by Oleksa Hajvoronskyj on the basis of Hadji Giray’s
rst minted coins and his name being mentioned by the Genovese authorities of Caa;
see idem, Poveliteli dvux materikov, vol. 1, p. 34, n. 32.
12 part one—chapter one
refuge in Lithuania, enjoying support of the grand dukes Sigismund
28
and Casimir,
29
and even held a post of the lieutenant of Lida.
In his recent book, Oleksa Hajvoronskyj praises Hadji Giray for sat-
isfying himself with the Crimea and not entering a risky ght over the
Volga steppe.
30
It does not mean that the rst Giray ruler refrained
from dynastic struggles at all. Between 1433 and 1454, the struggle
for the heritage of the Golden Horde was oen intertwined with the
struggle for the Lithuanian throne. ree pretenders (not counting
Hadji Giray) fought then for the throne of the Golden Horde:
1) Ulug Muhammed, the former ally of Vytautas, who nally settled
in Kazan;
2) Seyyid Ahmed, the grandson of Tokhtamısh;
3) Küchük Muhammed, the son of Timur Qutlug, who eventually
prevailed and le to his sons the rule of the so-called Great Horde,
with its capital in Saray on the Volga.
In 1433, Seyyid Ahmed claimed the throne of the Horde with the sup-
port of the Lithuanian malcontent, Švitrigaila, a younger brother of
Jogaila, who shortly reigned Lithuania in the years 1430–1432, but was
deposed in favor of Vytautas’ younger brother, Sigismund. In the ensu-
ing Lithuanian civil war (1432–1435), Švitrigaila was supported by the
Teutonic Order and Seyyid Ahmed, while Sigismund by Poland and
Hadji Giray. No wonder that in Vilnius and Cracow Seyyid Ahmed
was regarded as a nuisance while Hadji Giray, the client of Sigismund,
earned his opinion of a trustful ally. e devastating raids of Seyyid
Ahmed into Lithuanian and Polish lands continued even aer the nal
defeat of Švitrigaila. In 1442, Vladislaus III, the king of Poland, reached
a “permanent peace” with Seyyid Ahmed, but it was paid for with the
promise of an annual “gi” to be collected and sent from Podolia.
31
28
A younger brother of Vytautas and the grand duke of Lithuania in the years
1432–1440.
29
Jogaila’s younger son, the grand duke of Lithuania in the years 1440–1492; also
the king of Poland since 1447.
30
Hajvoronskyj, Poveliteli dvux materikov, vol. 1, p. 24.
31
As Vladislaus, Jogaila’s older son, was also the king of Hungary (and died two
years later in the battle of Varna), the peace was conrmed in Buda; see Ludwik
Kolankowski, Dzieje Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego za Jagiellonów, vol. I: 1377–1499
(Warsaw, 1930), p. 259.
genghisid legacy: shaping eastern europe (1240–1523) 13
In 1454, Seyyid Ahmed supported another Lithuanian malcontent,
Semen Olelkovyč from the Lithuanian princely family, whose grandfa-
ther was Jogaila’s older brother. Frustrated by the centralizing policy of
Casimir (grand duke of Lithuania 1440–1492, also the king of Poland
since 1447), a group of Lithuanian notables planned to put Semen
on the Lithuanian throne with the support of Seyyid Ahmed. Yet, a
prompt relief by Hadji Giray resulted in a rout of Seyyid Ahmed’s
troops. While Semen was pardoned by Casimir and bestowed the
principality of Kiev as a life tenure, Seyyid Ahmed, who took refuge
in Kiev, was imprisoned and spent the rest of his life in Lithuanian
captivity.
It might appear as a paradox that having helped to eliminate Seyyid
Ahmed, the grandson of Tokhtamısh, the Girays would later conse-
quently stress their former loyalty to Tokhtamısh and thus claim their
rights to his inheritance. Many years later, in 1480 Mengli Giray would
also demand the return of Seyyid Ahmed’s followers, allowed to settle
down in Semen’s lands aer 1454, as the Girays regarded these people
as their hereditary subjects.
32
In 1465, Hadji Giray also crossed his sword with Mahmud, a son of
Küchük Muhammed, defeating his troops on the Don river, abducting
many of his subjects and settling them down in the Crimea.
Friendly relations between Casimir and Hadji Giray continued until
the latter’s death in 1466. A Polish chronicler, Jan Długosz, describes
32
Cf. Document 6, n. 4. A “canonical” chain of succession, legitimizing the Girays’
dynastic rights, is recorded in a Lithuanian report dated 1506. e Crimean envoys,
invited to dine with the king, then recalled the ancient mutual friendship dating from
the times of “Tokhtamısh, Djalaleddin, Djabbarberdi, Köpek, Keremberdi, Kadırberdi,
[Ulug] Muhammed, Seyyid Ahmed, Hadji Giray, and Nur Devlet” (Taktamyš,
Čželehdyn, Perberdy, Kebek, Keremberdy, Kaderberdy, Mahmet, Sylexmat, Ažy Gyrej,
Mordovlat) until the reign of Mengli Giray; see Lietuvos Metrika. Knyga Nr. 8 (1499–
1514). Užrašymų knyga 8. Edited by A. Baliulis, R. Firkovičius and D. Antanavičius
(Vilnius, 1995), p. 53. All the aforelisted rulers descended from Genghis Khan’s grand-
son, Togha Timur (Tuqay Timur), yet they belonged to three dierent branches:
a) Tokhtamısh, his ve sons and his grandson, Seyyid Ahmed; b) Ulug Muhammad,
who had a common great great grandfather with Tokhtamısh; c) the Girays, more
closely related to Ulug Muhammed than to Tokhtamısh; on the confused Genghisid
genealogy, cf. Abul’-Gazi, Rodoslovnoe drevo tjurkov. Edited by G. Sablukov (Kazan,
1906), pp. 156–157; and a genealogical tree in Magamet Safargaliev, Raspad Zolotoj
ordy (Saransk, 1960). e Lithuanian report from 1506 is quoted in Zajcev, “Zapisi
genealogij i pravlenij krymskix xanov i krymskie srednevekovye istoričeskie xroniki,”
Vostok. Afro-aziatskie obščestva: istorija i sovremennost’ (2008), no. 4, pp. 28–36, esp.
p. 28. Yet, using a corrupt version from Sbornik knjazja Obolenskago, Zajcev omitted
Seyyid Ahmed, whose presence on the list explains the claim by Mengli Giray to rule
over his former subjects.