Kolodziejczyk Dariusz. The Crimean Khanate and Poland-Lithuania (ENG)
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
14 part one—chapter one
a solemn Crimean embassy that was received in Nowy Korczyn in
December 1461. e envoys carried precious gis, including a camel
covered with costly textiles, and assured the king of the khan’s wish
to keep friendship and face common enemies.
33
Perhaps the afore-
mentioned embassy brought the solemn yarlıq that is preserved today
in a Polish translation.
34
Yet, the document is confusingly dated 22
September 1461 AD, and simultaneously in the Muslim year 867
A.H. While the Christian date ts perfectly with the arrival of the
khan’s embassy to Poland in the late fall of 1461, the Muslim date
does not t at all as it refers to the period between September 1462
and September 1463!
35
We either have to assume that the Crimean
chancery was unfamiliar with the Muslim calendar [sic], or that the
Christian date is erroneous and the yarlıq was brought by another
embassy not recorded by Długosz, probably to Lithuania and not to
Poland. e latter hypothesis is conrmed by the document’s contents.
It is addressed to Casimir as the grand duke of Lithuania, and to his
Lithuanian and Ruthenian councilors and subjects, whereas Poland is
not even mentioned. Moreover, it lists Podolia along with its major
castle of Kamjanec’ among the lands granted by the khan to Lithuania.
33
Ubi [in Nowy Korczyn-DK] multifarias legaciones nonnullorum principum, pri-
mum autem legati Eczigeri, imperatoris Tartarorum, qui dudum advenerant et aput
Radom continebantur, auditi sunt. Qui camelo uno punico panno vestito, item aliquot
insignibus purpuris regi presentatis, oerebant cesarem ad omnes expediciones et bella
cum quibuscunque hostibus gerenda solacia regi laturum cum regeque et omnibus terris
dominiorum suorum sinceram pacem servaturum . . .; see Joannis Dlugossi Annales seu
Cronicae incliti Regni Poloniae. Liber duodecimus: 1445–1461 (Cracow, 2003), p. 372.
34
See Document 1. Already Pułaski concluded that the yarlıq of Hadji Giray had
been probably (Pol. zapewne) delivered by the embassy described by Długosz; see
idem, Stosunki Polski z Tatarszczyzną, p. 3. e yarlıq is preserved in two copies, one
in a 16th-century manuscript, another in the so-called Naruszewicz Folders (Teki Nar-
uszewicza) from the 18th century, without any reference to the original or earlier cop-
ies. A Polish bishop and historian, Stanisław Siestrzeńcewicz Bohusz, maintained that
he had seen “this diploma,” apparently referring to the original, in 1772 in the Załuski
Library in Warsaw (sej diplom ja videl v Varšave v 1772, v Biblioteke Zaluskago); see
Stanislav Sestrencevič Boguš, Istorija Carstva Xersonesa Tavrijskago (St. Petersburg,
1806), vol. 2, p. 247, n. 1 [this remark is entered only in the Russian version of his
book and missing in the French one; cf. Stanislave Siestrzencewicz de Bohusz, His-
toire du Royaume de la Chersonese Taurique (St. Petersburg, 1824), p. 352, n. (h)].
However, a century later, when the Załuski Library was held in St. Petersburg, Vasilij
Smirnov was already unable to nd the said diploma; see idem, Krymskoe xanstvo,
pp. 240–241. Shortly before WW2, the Załuski Library was restored to Poland and
perished in 1944.
35
e Muslim year 867 A.H. lasted from 26 September 1462 till 14 September 1463.
It is worth noting that 22 September could not fall in the year 867 A.H. at all, as it
began aer that date and ended before it.
genghisid legacy: shaping eastern europe (1240–1523) 15
In the period concerned, a heated conict over Podolia reemerged
between the Lithuanian and Polish lords, and Casimir strove hard to
appease it.
36
An arrival of such document to Poland would certainly
increase the tension and would not serve well the Crimean-Polish
relations. Neither would it explain the high opinion that Hadji Giray
enjoyed in the eyes of Długosz—an ardent representative of the Pol-
ish clergy, full of mistrust towards the Lithuanians. Lacking further
evidence, we must conclude that the khan’s yarlıq was either issued
on 22 September 1461 and brought to Poland, or rather it was drawn
at least one year later and brought to Lithuania.
Hadji Giray’s yarlıq invokes the Lithuanian hospitality once expe-
rienced by Tokhtamısh, referred to as “our elder brother.” e docu-
ment is apparently based on two earlier yarlıqs, whose texts are today
lost: the one granted by Tokhtamısh to Vytautas probably in 1397
37
and another, granted by Hadji Giray to Sigismund somewhere between
1432 and 1440.
38
In return for the Lithuanian assistance, Tokhtamısh
had once granted a number of lands to Vytautas, his grant was then
conrmed by Hadji Giray in the latter’s yarlıq addressed to Sigismund,
and nally reconrmed in the yarlıq sent to Casimir. e document
contains a list of towns, provinces and estates, making up the whole
southern and eastern territory of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania,
namely: Volhynia (Luc’k), Podolia (Kamjanec’, Braclav), the Black
Sea steppe between the lower Dniester and the lower Boh (Karaul,
Jabu, Balykly, Dašov), the Dnieper Ukraine (Kiev, the lands along the
Dnieper down to its mouth), the estates on the rivers Vorskla (Losyčy,
Xotmyšl’, Nycjany), Sula (Sneporod, Hlyns’k, Synec), Sejm (Putyvl’,
Žolvaž, Byryn, Ryl’sk, Kursk), and Desna (Černihiv, Novhorod-
Sivers’kyj, Starodub, Brjansk), the lands extending between the upper
Sejm and the upper Donec (the tümen of Jagoldaj
39
along with Mužeč
and Oskol), the province of Smolensk, the lands on the upper Oka
(Mcensk, Ljubutsk, Kozel’sk, Volkonsk, Spažsk), and nally the lands
of the Duchy of Rjazan’ (Tula, Berestej, Retan’, Pronsk) that acknowl-
edged Lithuanian suzerainty only in the years 1428–1434. Moreover,
in return for Casimir’s friendly acts, Hadji Giray granted him the
36
Cf. Kolankowski, Dzieje Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego, pp. 292–294.
37
Cf. Prochaska, “Z Witoldowych dziejów,” p. 260.
38
Cf. Document 1, n. 26.
39
On this estate and its holder, see Document 8, n. 18.
16 part one—chapter one
republics of Pskov and Velikij Novgorod that had long constituted the
bone of contention between Vilnius and Moscow.
In fact, Hadji Giray had no control over these lands, perhaps with the
exemption of the Black Sea steppe. Most of them had long belonged to
Lithuania while others remained independent, but were contested by
both Lithuania and Muscovy (the Duchy of Rjazan’, Pskov, and Velikij
Novgorod). Yet, by granting them the khan acted as a suzerain, even if
he did not demand any tribute from Casimir. is act fairly reected
the old balance of power between the Golden Horde and Lithuania,
but certainly not the actual state of aairs. erefore, it is striking that
Lithuanian rulers, being simultaneously the kings of Poland, did not
resent this custom. Moreover, they willingly accepted similar “grants”
from Hadji’s successors for another century! e most likely explana-
tion would be that they treated such acts as a security against Tatar
raids and, moreover, a legitimization of their territorial claims against
Muscovy.
When Hadji Giray died in 1466, the Polish chronicler dedicated him
a eulogy, praising him as the ruler, who sub omni tempore sui imperii
pacem optimam cum Regno Polonie [. . .] custodivit et tenuit; humanus
civilisque et bene agendi cupidus, friendly towards Christians, and even
ready to assist King Casimir against his Muslim coreligionists.
40
Internal and external factors in the making of the Crimean Khanate
e lack of established rules regarding the inheritance of the throne
among the Genghisid family members, which so oen frustrated the
internal stability of the Golden Horde, was to constantly inuence the
Crimean politics as well. At the moment of his death, Hadji Giray
le seven living sons, of whom the oldest, Nur Devlet, ascended the
throne.
41
In the Crimean hierarchy, next to the Giray family members stood
the clan leaders called qaraçıs or qaraçı beys.
42
Usually this title
40
Joannis Dlugossii Annales seu Cronicae incliti Regni Poloniae. Liber duodecimus:
1462–1480 (Cracow, 2005), p. 174.
41
Hajvoronskyj, Poveliteli dvux materikov, vol. 1, p. 103, n. 1.
42
e institution of four qaraçıs (also referred to as “ulus emirs” in al-Umari’s
description of the Golden Horde) can be traced to the early Genghisid state and was
present in other Genghisid successor states as well; see Uli Schamiloglu, “e qaraçı
beys of the Later Golden Horde: Notes of the organization of the Mongol world
genghisid legacy: shaping eastern europe (1240–1523) 17
applied to the leaders of four major clans, though the composition
of the “privileged” clans changed with time. Until the early 16th cen-
tury, these were the Shirins, Barıns, Arghıns, and Qıpchaqs, of whom
the Shirins were by far the most inuential.
43
e Shirin clan leaders,
Mamaq and then his brother Eminek, were to play a major role in the
crucial decade between 1468 and 1478.
44
Another factor that inuenced political life of the early Crimean
Khanate was the Genovese colony of Caa. Its economic prosperity
and very survival depended on the cooperation with hinterland rulers,
rst the khans of the Golden Horde and later the khans of the Crimea.
e Italians formally acknowledged the khan’s suzerainty by send-
ing him annual gis and the khan’s representative (tudun) resided in
Caa, collecting taxes from its Tatar inhabitants and a share of its
port’s customs incomes.
45
Although in theory subject to the khans, the
rich and walled city could itself inuence the Crimean policy, espe-
cially during a dynastic crisis. In response to the Ottoman conquest
of Constantinople (1453) and the subsequent conquests of the Black
Sea ports of Amasra, Sinop, and Trebizond (1459–1461), in 1462 Caa
acknowledged the suzerainty of King Casimir of Poland, though this
suzerainty would remain purely nominal.
46
Among other external actors who were to aect the political life
of the Khanate, one should mention the descendants of Küchük
Muhammed, ruling the Great Horde on the Volga, King Casimir of
Poland and Lithuania (r. 1440/47–1492), Ivan III of Muscovy (r. 1462–
1505), and especially the Ottoman sultan, Mehmed II (r. 1451–1481).
empire,” Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi, vol. 4 (Wiesbaden, 1984): 283–297; and Bea-
trice Forbes Manz, “e clans of the Crimean Khanate, 1466–1532,” Harvard Ukrai-
nian Studies 2 (1978): 282–309.
43
Halil Inalcık, “e khan and the tribal aristocracy: e Crimean Khanate under
Sahib Giray I,” Harvard Ukrainian Studies 3–4 (1979–1980) = Eucharisterion: Essays
presented to Omeljan Pritsak on his Sixtieth Birthday by his Colleagues and Students,
pt. 1: 445–466, esp. pp. 447–448, n. 6. is order, established by Inalcık on the base of
the 18th-century Crimean-Ottoman chronicle by Seyyid Muhammed Riza [cf. idem,
Es-seb‘u`s-seyyar ahbari muluki Tatar. Edited by I. Kazembek (Kazan, 1832), p. 93]
and the 16th-century report by the Habsburg envoy, Sigismund von Herberstein [cf.
Sigismund Gerberštejn, Zapiski o Moskovii (Moscow, 1988), p. 184], is further con-
rmed by two lists of the Crimean qaraçıs, who swore an oath to keep peace, respec-
tively with Lithuania in 1507 and Muscovy in 1508; see Document 9, n. 40.
44
See Eminek’s short biography in Document 5, n. 9.
45
See Oleksandr Halenko, “Tudun,” Sxidnyj Svit (1998), nos. 1–2: 183–204.
46
Marian Małowist, Kaa, kolonia genueńska na Krymie i problem wschodni w
latach 1453–1475 (Warsaw, 1947), pp. 171–178.
18 part one—chapter one
Soon aer his accession, Nur Devlet aimed to secure his reign by
sending embassies to neighboring rulers. In the spring of 1467, a Tatar
envoy named Qoshar arrived in Poland with the ocial announce-
ment of Hadji Giray’s death and the new khan’s desire to maintain
the peace.
47
On his way back to the Crimea, Qoshar was accompa-
nied by a royal envoy, Albert (i.e., Wojciech) Borowski, who deliv-
ered Casimir’s condolences and declaration to keep peace. Later in
the same year, Borowski returned to Poland with a treaty document
issued by Nur Devlet on 17 September 1467, in his residence in Qırq
Yer.
48
e form of this document, written in quite sophisticated Latin,
is unusual for the Crimean chancery and does not bear any similarity
to the yarlıqs and şartnames issued by Hadji Giray and Mengli Giray.
It is possible that the clerk charged with its preparation was an Italian
from Caa, uent in Latin and Western chancery forms. From a later
correspondence we learn that Nur Devlet also issued a yarlıq concern-
ing the Lithuanian lands, collected by the Lithuanian embassy of Jan
Kučukovyč.
49
Nur Devlet did not remain in power for long. His younger ambi-
tious brother, Mengli Giray, who tried to reach for the throne already
in 1467, secured the support of the Genovese and the Shirins and
defeated Nur Devlet in a civil war that lasted from June 1468 till Janu-
ary 1469.
50
e new khan notied his accession to King Casimir and
later in the same year promptly warned him of a pending invasion
by the Tatars of the Great Horde. e king reciprocated by sending
Albert Borowski again to the Crimea.
51
47
Joannis Dlugossii Annales seu Cronicae incliti Regni Poloniae. Liber duodecimus:
1462–1480, p. 183. e arrival of the Crimean embassy is not dated, but it is recorded
by Długosz among the events that occurred between April and May 1467. e edi-
tors of Długosz’s chronicle confuse the arrival of this embassy with the return of the
subsequent embassy of Borowski which should be dated not earlier than November
1467; cf. ibidem, p. 505, n. 37.
48
See Document 2. Its dating according to the Christian calendar is conrmed by
the dating according to the Muslim era: the month of Safer of the year 872 A.H. lasted
from 1 till 29 September 1467.
49
e yarlıq, which was probably based on the yarlıq of Hadji Giray, is not extant,
but it is mentioned in a letter by Mengli Giray sent in 1506 to the Lithuanian Lords
Councilors; see Pułaski, Stosunki Polski z Tatarszczyzną, p. 292.
50
Małowist, Kaa, pp. 279–280.
51
Joannis Dlugossii Annales seu Cronicae incliti Regni Poloniae. Liber duodecimus:
1462–1480, pp. 229–230, 243–244, and 248 (all three missions recorded under the
year 1469).
genghisid legacy: shaping eastern europe (1240–1523) 19
Early in the year 1472, Casimir sent to Mengli Giray another envoy,
Jan Kierdej.
52
On his way back, Kierdej was accompanied by a Tatar
envoy named Zafer (or perhaps Sefer or Djafer), who carried Mengli’s
letter, anouncing his will to maintain peace.
53
Finally, a formal royal
instrument of peace was issued in Cracow on 27 July 1472.
54
Having
invoked the formal oath, sworn by the khan and his retinue in the
presence of Kierdej, and the peaceful contents of Zafer’s embassy, the
king engaged on his behalf and on behalf of his subjects to rmly
observe the peace and mutual friendship. e document, drawn by
the Polish chancellor, was corroborated by the archbishop of Gniezno,
two bishops, and other notables, of whom eleven were mentioned by
names.
Although Casimir was simultaneously the ruler of Poland and Lith-
uania, it seems that in that period the Crimean-Polish negotiations
were conducted separately from the Crimean-Lithuanian ones. While
Latin was used in the Crimean-Polish relations, the correspondence
between Qırq Yer and Vilnius was conducted in Ruthenian. Shortly
aer the Polish embassy of Kierdej, a Lithuanian envoy, Bohdan
Sakovyč, accompanied by a scribe Ivas’ko, was sent to the Crimea and
returned with a new yarlıq issued by Mengli Giray.
55
While in the royal
instrument from 1472 Casimir gures merely as the king of Poland,
in the khan’s yarlıq he is referred to exclusively as the grand duke of
Lithuania, and Poland is not even mentioned.
Like the earlier yarlıq of Hadji Giray, the yarlıq of Mengli Giray is
preserved only in Polish translation. Its dating is again confusing, as
it is dated in 1472 AD, and simultaneously in the Muslim year 878
A.H. that lasted from 29 May 1473 to 17 May 1474. e contents of
both yarlıqs are almost identical. Although a few localities have been
52
On the envoy’s identication, see Document 3, n. 3.
53
e rst royal letter from the beginning of 1472, whose approximate date can
be established on the basis of the ensuing correspondence, is not extant. e khan’s
response (cum sigillo meo litera) was dated in the year 876 A.H. (the ending LXVI is
an obvious mistake, it should read LXXVI) and accompanied by a separate letter to
Casimir’s son, Vladislaus, congratulating the latter on his accession to the throne of
Bohemia. Both Mengli’s letters are preserved in Latin copies and published in Pułaski,
Stosunki Polski z Tatarszczyzną, p. 199. e Muslim year 876 lasted from 20 June 1471
till 7 June 1472, but the khan’s letters can be tentatively dated more precisely in the
spring of 1472.
54
See Document 3.
55
See Document 4, along with biographic details on the envoys in notes 31–32.
20 part one—chapter one
added
56
and a few others are missing,
57
these changes do not seem
to reect any conscious political decision. e omissions are prob-
ably due to scribal neglect, while the addition of new localities, per-
haps on the insistence of Lithuanian envoys or in result of a double
check with an original list that is now lost, does not really change the
geographical shape of the territory “granted” to Lithuania. Again, the
khan “granted” to Casimir the lands of the Duchy of Rjazan’
58
and
the Republic of Velikij Novgorod, contested by Muscovy. e issue
was timely since Novgorod had accepted Lithuanian patronage in
1470, but then its troops had suered a crushing defeat in a confron-
tation with Muscovy in 1471. In the given context, the omission of
Pskov in the yarlıq seems incidental as Novgorod was more politically
important and more distant from Vilnius.
e Lithuanian-Muscovian conict over Novgorod contributed to a
reversal of alliances that was soon to spoil the relations between Casi-
mir and Mengli Giray. Looking for an eective diversion against Mus-
covy, in 1471 the Lithuanian diplomacy encouraged Ahmed, the son of
Küchük Muhammed and the khan of the Great Horde, to attack Ivan
III. For Mengli Giray, any rapprochement between Vilnius and the
descendants of Timur Qutlug was equal to treason. us, he resolved
to enter an alliance with Moscow. Ivan III, endangered from the west
and south by the alliance between Vilnius and Saray, welcomed this
opportunity. Early in the year 1474, a Crimean envoy named Hadji
Baba (Azbaba) arrived at Moscow and swore an oath (Rus. pravdu
dal) on behalf of Mengli Giray. His mission was followed by a solemn
Crimean embassy, headed by a member of the Shirin clan, Devletek
(Eminek’s son), who brought a formal treaty instrument issued by the
khan (Rus. jarlyk šertnoj) and witnessed the oath sworn by Ivan III in
March 1475.
59
e new alliance, openly directed against Khan Ahmed
and King Casimir, materialized already in the summer of 1474, when
56
Volodymyr in Volhynia, Sokolec’ in Podolia, Majak on the lower Dniester,
Kačybej on the Black Sea shore, Čerkasy on the Dnieper.
57
Synec on the Sula river, Putyvl’ and Žolvaž on the Sejm river.
58
For this time even its capital of Perejaslavl’ is singled out.
59
Cf. Kolankowski, Dzieje Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego, pp. 324–328; Anna
Xoroškevič, Rus’ i Krym, pp. 114–115, 123, 143, and 206. e early Crimean-
Muscovian contacts of the years 1474–1475 are documented in Pamjatniki diplo-
matičeskix snošenij, vol. 1, pp. 1–12.
genghisid legacy: shaping eastern europe (1240–1523) 21
Crimean troops commanded by Haydar, Mengli Giray’s brother, and
Eminek, raided southern provinces of Poland and Lithuania.
60
Aer Mamaq’s death in 1473, Eminek became the qaraçı of the Shi-
rins and obtained the lucrative post of tudun in Caa. Yet, early in the
year 1475 he was deprived of his functions and forced to seek refuge in
the Caucasus. In revenge, he stirred a civil war and invited the Otto-
mans to intervene. Mehmed II long awaited an opportunity to lay his
hand on the riches of Caa. On 6 June 1475, the Genovese colony sur-
rendered before the Ottoman commander, Gedik Ahmed Pasha. Caa
became the center of a new Ottoman province which encompassed
the southern coast of the Crimea (it consisted of the former Genovese
lands and the Gotho-Byzantine principality of eodoro-Mangup,
conquered in the same year). Mengli Giray was arrested and taken to
Constantinople, and Nur Devlet, who had been interned by the Geno-
vese in the years 1469–1475, was restored to the Crimean throne.
It soon turned out that Nur Devlet, being in conict with his brother
Haydar, was unable to stabilize his rule. To make things worse, the
troops of the Great Horde invaded the Crimea in 1476, and the penin-
sula was ruled for sometime by Khan Ahmed’s representative, Djanibek.
Eminek again called for an Ottoman intervention, asking Mehmed II
to send back Mengli Giray and promising that for this time the khan
would not encounter any opposition.
61
e sultan agreed and Mengli
Giray regained his throne to rule for another 37 years.
Between Istanbul, Moscow, and Vilnius: the long reign
of Mengli Giray (1478–1515)
Although the existence of a formal treaty, reportedly concluded in
1478 and establishing the bonds of vassalage between the Ottomans
60
Kolankowski, Dzieje Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego, pp. 321–322. Feliks Koneczny
believed that this raid had occurred without Mengli’s knowledge, invoking a phrase
from the Długosz chronicle: iniussu sui cesaris and stressing that both Eminek and
Haydar had been the khan’s enemies; see idem, “Sprawy z Mengli-Girejem 1473–
1504,” p. 147. Yet, an open conict between Eminek and Mengli Giray began only in
the fall of 1474. Besides, the arguments that the khan had been unaware of a given
raid were used all to oen by the Crimean diplomacy and should be taken with a
grain of salt.
61
See Eminek’s letter to Mehmed II from October 1478, published in Le khanat de
Crimée, pp. 70–75.
22 part one—chapter one
and the Girays, has been convincingly rejected in historiography,
62
it
goes without saying that aer 1475 no Crimean khan could ignore the
Ottoman presence, not just across the sea, but in neighboring Caa
as well.
Mengli Giray’s relations with Moscow were inuenced by com-
mon interest mixed with political blackmail. Certainly, Muscovy was
a valuable ally against the Great Horde and an attractive trade partner.
Yet, Ivan III also had another argument. Aer Mengli regained the
Crimean throne, his brothers Nur Devlet and Haydar initially took
refuge in Kiev, but in the fall of 1479, unrestrained by Lithuanian
authorities, le for Muscovy. In April 1480, in a ne piece of diplo-
matic hypocrisy, Ivan instructed his envoy to the Crimea to assure
Mengli Giray that he had invited his brothers only for the khan’s own
sake, so that they do not plan anything wrong against him.
63
In 1486,
Nur Devlet was put on the throne of the Khanate of Qasım (centered
in Gorodec Meščerskij, renamed as Kasimov, on the Oka river), a pup-
pet state controlled by Muscovian rulers, which served as a safe haven
for dissatised Genghisid pretenders and simultaneously as a buer
against Tatar raids from the southeast (i.e., the Great Horde). Aer
Nur Devlet’s death in ca. 1491, the Khanate of Qasım remained in the
hands of his sons until ca. 1512, when it was granted to a prince from
another branch of the Genghisid dynasty.
64
e Crimean-Muscovian alliance was directed against both the
Great Horde and Poland-Lithuania, but the two partners perceived its
priorities dierently. For Ivan III, it was an equally useful tool against
Khan Ahmed, who still demanded a tribute from Moscow and treated
its ruler as his vassal, and against Casimir, whose Ruthenian territo-
ries were regarded by the Muscovian ruler as his rightful heritage, to
be sooner or later “reunited.” For Mengli Giray, the struggle with the
Great Horde seemed to be much more important. erefore, it is not
all that surprising that in 1480 he made an eort to reconcile with
Vilnius, apparently hoping for an isolation of the Great Horde. In the
spring of 1480 Hadji Baba (Azbaba), the same Crimean envoy who
62
See Halil İnalcık, “Yeni vesikalara göre Kırım hanlığının Osmanlı tâbiliğine
girmesi ve ahidname meselesi,” Belleten 8 (1944): 185–229; cf. Alan Fisher, e
Crimean Tatars, pp. 11–12.
63
Pamjatniki diplomatičeskix snošenij, vol. 1, pp. 17–18.
64
Vladimir Vel’jaminov-Zernov, Izsledovanie o kasimovskix carjax i carevičax,
vol. 1 (St. Petersburg, 1863), pp. 126–148; see also Zajcev [Zaitsev], “e Khanate of
Kasim,” in: e Turks, vol. 2, pp. 854–857.
genghisid legacy: shaping eastern europe (1240–1523) 23
had sworn the treaty with Muscovy in 1474, arrived at Vilnius and
swore an oath to keep peace in the presence of Casimir.
65
e oath
was pronounced on behalf of the khan, his qalga and younger brother
Yaghmurcha,
66
his other relatives, and the Crimean nobles. e envoy
also promised that if the king sent his envoy to the Crimea, the peace
would be personally conrmed by Mengli Giray, Eminek, and other
notables.
67
Aer a few months’ delay, in September 1480 Casimir sent to the
Crimea his envoy, Prince Ivan Hlyns’kyj (Pol. Gliński), a noble descen-
dant of Tatar settlers in Lithuania. Almost simultaneously, Crimean
troops raided Lithuania. Nevertheless, in mid-October Mengli Giray
took a solemn oath in Hlyns’kyj’s presence, promising to keep friend-
ship and prevent his subjects from raiding Casimir’s “people, lands,
or waters.” e text of the oath was recorded in the khan’s instrument
of peace, referred to as “oath-letter” (Ruth. prysjažnyj lyst) and sent to
Vilnius.
68
To Casimir’s confusion, Mengli’s instrument also required
the king to send him back the Tatar subjects allegedly donated by
Hadji Giray to Prince Semen Olelkovyč.
69
On his way back, Hlyns’kyj
was accompanied by two Tatar envoys, Bayrash (Bajraš) and Seyyid
Ahmed (Sedyxmat), who were provided with several letters.
70
In a let-
ter given to Bayrash, the khan apologized for the recent raid, blam-
ing his “ill advisers” (ljudy lyxy), but also the royal side for having
detained Hadji Baba for so long and temporized in sending Hlyns’kyj’s
embassy.
71
65
On a more precise dating of Hadji Baba’s embassy, see Document 5, n. 10.
66
On Yaghmurcha (Yaġmurça), who remained loyal to Mengli Giray for his whole
life, see Document 5, n. 8.
67
e text of the oath has been recorded and is preserved; see Document 5.
68
See Document 6.
69
e issue, referring to the events of the year 1454 (see above), remained unsolved
for another 20 years; cf. Document 6, n. 4.
70
Although both Tatar envoys are mentioned together in Mengli Giray’s letter
from October 1480, the rst one arrived earlier, along with Hlyns’kyj, and the second
one in January 1481. Perhaps Bayrash was merely a courier, and Seyyid Ahmed an
envoy proper? For a corrected chronology of the Crimean-Lithuanian correspondence
from the years 1480–1486, recorded in a Lithuanian chancery book in distorted order,
see Egidijus Banionis [Banënis], “K voprosu o genezise posol’skix knig (1480–1486),”
in: Issledovanija po istorii Litovskoj metriki, vol. 1 (Moscow, 1989): 64–84, esp. pp.
80–81.
71
Lietuvos Metrika. Knyga Nr. 4 (1479–1491). Užrašymų knyga 4. Edited by L. Anužytė
(Vilnius, 2004), p. 92; the letter was earlier published in Russkaja Istoričeskaja Bib-
lioteka izdavaemaja Imperatorskoju Arxeogračeskoju Kommissieju, vol. 27: Litovskaja