Kolodziejczyk Dariusz. The Crimean Khanate and Poland-Lithuania (ENG)
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
44 part one—chapter one
royal forces against Muscovy, and restore to Sigismund his lost ter-
ritories. Moreover, both sides were to resign from any claims regard-
ing past wrongdoings. To replace the late prince Djalaleddin, Mengli
promised to send as a hostage another grandson from among the sons
of Mehmed Giray and the latter’s wife Nurum. e khan also granted
freedom and security to royal subjects, who would come to extract
salt and trade, by referring to them somewhat curiously as “your mer-
chants [coming] from Poland, Lithuania, Germany, and any of your
lands.”
135
e document stressed that the last privilege was bestowed
in return for the royal gis sent to the khan. In order to strengthen
his promises, Mengli Giray referred to the oath that he, along with
his sons and retinue members, had sworn in the presence of the royal
envoys: Stanisław Skinder, Hryhoryj Hromyka, Jacek Ratomski, and
Myxajlo Svynjuska.
136
Ratomski and Svynjuska, who arrived at Vilnius
along with the Crimean embassy of Keldish and de Garibaldis, were
to bear testimony to the khan’s oath. e formula of the oath was
recorded separately and sent to Vilnius as well.
137
In the spring of 1514, a new Muscovian oensive developed against
Lithuania and Smolensk was again besieged. In May, Sigismund sent
Keldish and de Garibaldis back to the Crimea, along with the rst
installment of the annual gis. e king urged Mengli Giray and his
son, Mehmed, to launch a common military action in the approach-
ing summer.
138
Instead, on 28 July a new Crimean embassy arrived at
Vilnius, headed by Abdullah Ulan and Abdıq Bey, and joined by the
returning royal envoys, Skinder and Hromyka. e khan explained that
135
. . . yz ljadskoe zemly, y lytovskoe, y z nemeckoe, y so vsyx vašyx zeml’; referring to
Germany, the Crimean chancery might have had in mind Royal Prussia, whose inhab-
itants, especially in the large cities of Danzig (Gdańsk), Elbing (Elbląg), and orn
(Toruń), were predominantly German; on this issue, see also Chapter 6 in Part II.
136
See Document 12. Skinder and Ratomski were sent to the khan in December
1512, the scribe Myxajlo Svynjuska was sent with a royal letter in July 1513, and Hro-
myka was sent in September 1513. In December 1513, all the four envoys were in the
Crimea (cf. Document 12, notes 29–32). e list of the royal envoys who witnessed
the khan’s oath was apparently arranged according to their rank, with Skinder as the
lieutenant of Oster at its head.
137
See Document 13. In a letter dated 25 February 1514, Sigismund referred to the
recorded formulas of the khan’s oaths sent through Mengli’s subsequent embassies
headed by Osman (?), Devlet Bakhtı (1512) and Keldish (1514); see Pułaski, Stosunki
Polski z Tatarszczyzną, p. 424. It is not certain whether the text recorded in 1514 was
identical to the earlier formulas.
138
Pułaski, Stosunki Polski z Tatarszczyzną, pp. 426–428.
genghisid legacy: shaping eastern europe (1240–1523) 45
for the time being he could not send troops against Muscovy, because
the Nogay horde, perhaps on Moscow’s instigation, approached the
Crimea. Assuring Sigismund of his loyalty, Mengli provided Hromyka
with yet another instrument of peace.
139
e document, drawn prob-
ably in June, was very similar to the previous yarlıq issued in Decem-
ber. e list of lands “granted” to Lithuania did not really change but
for minor variations due apparently to copyists’ negligence, with the
notable exception of Kamjanec’ that was probably removed from the
list deliberately.
140
Unlike the earlier yarlıq, the instrument brought
by Hromyka did not list Mengli’s sons by names, although the khan
made his engagements on their behalf, too. Neither did the instrument
specify that the Giray prince to be sent as hostage to Lithuania should
be a son of Mehmed Giray. More interesting variations occurred in the
clause referring to trade. While the previous document merely pro-
vided that the royal merchants could come to extract salt, the docu-
ment brought by Hromyka specied the area, namely the salines near
Kačybej. Moreover, it allowed the royal merchants not only to trade in
the khan’s domains, but also to travel to the Ottoman port of Caa. At
least some of the above changes must have been entered on the insis-
tence of Hromyka in accordance with his instructions and the royal
instrument of peace. Unlike in the earlier version, two clauses of the
khan’s instrument, brought by Hromyka, closely reminded in wording
the analogous clauses of the royal document from 1513.
141
On 30 July 1514, Smolensk fell to Muscovian troops. Even the
impressive victory, attained shortly aerwards by the Lithuanian-
Polish army at Orša (8 September), did not compensate for the loss of
the major fortress. Sigismund notied Mengli of his victory, again ask-
ing for Crimean reinforcements. e king also asked the khan through
139
See Document 14 and the khan’s letters published in Pułaski, Stosunki Polski
z Tatarszczyzną, pp. 434–436. On Abdullah Ulan and Abdıq Bey, cf. Document 15,
n. 16.
140
In comparison with the previous yarlıq, Volodymyr, Kamjanec’, and Černihiv
are absent while Nycjany, Kačybej, and Majak reappear (admittedly, Kačybej and
Majak also gure in the 16th-century Polish translation that is probably based on the
instrument from December 1513; cf. n. 134 above and Document 12, n. 1). For a pos-
sible reason of the removal of Kamjanec’ from the list, see below.
141
Cf. Documents 10 and 14, especially the clauses beginning with the words: a
kotoryi horody y volosty, zemly y vody, moskovskyj [. . .] zabral y posel . . ., and: a kotorye
lyxyi dela byly staly sja. . . .
46 part one—chapter one
his envoy Myxajlo Svynjuska
142
for an instrument of peace issued sepa-
rately for the Polish Crown.
e last issue reects the rising role of Poland in the Jagiellonian
eastern policy. In the 15th century, a tacit “division of competencies”
seemed to have regulated the foreign policy of the Jagiellonian double
monarchy. While the relations with Western courts, Bohemia, Hun-
gary, and the Ottoman Porte were mostly dealt with by the royal chan-
cery in Cracow, the Muscovian and Crimean aairs usually remained
the domain of Vilnius.
143
e division was also reected by chancery
languages used for international correspondence: respectively Latin for
Poland and Ruthenian for Lithuania. Yet, the Polish nancial share in
the “gis” (or tribute) sent yearly to the Crimea and the rising involve-
ment of Polish troops in defending Lithuanian lands from either Tatar
raids
144
or Muscovian invasions resulted in the rise of political claims
regarding decision making and representation. e proposal to keep
the Crimean hostage in Poland instead of Lithuania, voiced in 1512,
and the references to the kings of Poland, Vladislaus Jagiełło and
John Albert, introduced in the “Lithuanian” instrument sent to the
Crimea in 1513, were already mentioned. e major role of Polish
military contingents in the Muscovian campaign of 1514 strength-
ened arguments that Cracow should have a say in the relations with
both Moscow and Qırq Yer. Sigismund, who had spent his youth in
Hungary and Silesia and then, as king, resided more oen in Cracow
than in Vilnius, was more inclined than his predecessors to solve such
142
Pułaski assumed that Myxajlo had been sent immediately aer the victory at
Orša, i.e., in September 1514, along with an interpreter named Kuzilman; yet, the
royal letter quoted by Pułaski names only Kuzilman as the envoy; cf. idem, Stosunki
Polski z Tatarszczyzną, pp. 191 and 437. Myxajlo was probably sent earlier, along with
the Crimean envoys, Keldish and de Garibaldis, returning to the Crimea along with
the royal gis, especially as they are all mentioned together in Mengli’s document
from 29 October referring to this issue (see below).
143
As late as in the 16th century, Polish statesmen admitted their limited expertise
in the Crimean aairs. In 1522 Piotr Tomicki, the Crown vice-chancellor, wrote to
Krzysztof Szydłowiecki, the Crown chancellor, that the Lithuanian councilors were
more familiar with the Tatar ways (domini Lithuani, qui artes Tartarorum melius cal-
lent); see Acta Tomiciana, vol. 6 (Poznań, 1857), p. 120. In 1541, when a Crimean
envoy negotiated in Cracow with the Polish lords councilors in the absence of the
king, who was then in Vilnius, the instrument resulting from these negotiations was
composed in Ruthenian and entered into the Lithuanian Register, and not the Crown
Register; see Document 29.
144
Besides, during some Tatar raids, like in 1512, the lands of the Polish Crown
suered more than the lands of the Grand Duchy.
genghisid legacy: shaping eastern europe (1240–1523) 47
disputes in favor of Poland. His Polish councilors were certainly infuri-
ated when in December 1513 Mengli Giray again “granted” Kamjanec’
to Lithuania, although the fortress had belonged to the Polish Crown
since 1430. Probably for that reason Kamjanec’ was not entered in the
second version of the yarlıq, brought by Hromyka in July 1514, and
was never listed again in the subsequent yarlıqs that “donated” lands
to Lithuania. Still, the reference to Vladislaus Jagiełło, entered in both
the Ruthenian and Latin versions of the royal instrument sent to the
khan in 1513, went apparently unnoticed in the Crimean chancery, as
Mengli’s both yarlıqs from 1513–1514 again referred solely to Vytautas
as the initiator of the ancient friendship. To summarize, while Poland
was mentioned twice in the khan’s document from December 1513,
Lithuania was mentioned eight times!
e wish of Sigismund and his Polish advisers was fullled on 29
October 1514, when the Crimean chancery prepared an instrument of
peace specically referring to Poland. It invoked the ancient friendship
initiated by the Tatar khans with “the great king of Poland, Jagiełło,
and thereaer [. . .] the grand duke of Lithuania, Vytautas,” and con-
tinued with usual clauses referring to the detention of Sheikh Ahmed,
the payment of annual gis, and the security of trade. e reason of
issuing this document was explained in a separate paragraph:
And you, the great king Sigismund [. . .] sent us two letters of agree-
ment [. . .], one in Frankish
145
and another in Ruthenian. e letter [. . .]
in Frankish you sent us under the great Polish seal [. . .], and the letter
[. . .] in Ruthenian, under the great Lithuanian seal. [. . .] And you [. . .]
requested [. . .] that we issue a letter of agreement for the Polish Crown
and the Lithuanian Duchy; we sent one through our envoy, but we did
not send any regarding the Polish Crown. So you sent [again] our envoys
Keldish and Augustin, and your envoy [. . .] Myxajlo [. . .], requesting that
we issue a letter of agreement regarding the Polish Crown. And we [. . .]
have written and sent this letter of agreement. As the Polish Crown and
the Lithuanian Duchy is like one [body] to us, whoever is an enemy to
the Polish Crown, will also be an enemy to us. As regards the towns that
belong to the Polish Crown, beginning with L’viv [Pol. Lwów], whoever
is an enemy to any of your people, castles, towns, and villages that are
recorded here, will be also an enemy to us.
146
145
e Ruthenian term frjažskyj applied to Latin or any Romance language, in the
given case to Latin.
146
See Document 15.
48 part one—chapter one
e above document is today preserved in Ruthenian copy. Its lost
original was probably in Ruthenian as well, since this language is known
to have been used by the Crimean chancery.
147
Yet, from another piece
of correspondence we learn that the king also asked for a document
“written in Muslim words,” drawn on the basis of Latin dra pro-
vided by the royal side.
148
e expression “Muslim words” apparently
referred to the Arabic script Turkic language then used in the Crimean
chancery (i.e., Khwarezmian Turkic), but we do not know whether the
khan complied with the request. Nevertheless, his chancery prepared
yet another version of the instrument regarding Poland, for that time
in Italian. e document was issued on 29 November and stamped
with two dierent nişans engraved in Arabic. e Italian text was com-
posed by Augustino de Garibaldis, who also wrote the bottom three
lines with his own hand. e document, preserved today in the origi-
nal, contains the same political clauses as the document in Ruthenian
issued on 29 October. Yet, minor variations occur in both form and
contents. For instance, when referring to the annual gis due to the
khan, the author specied that the one-half delivered in kind should
consist mainly of cloth (prencepalmente in panni). e explanation of
the causes that had driven the khan to issue a separate instrument
for Poland, entered in the Ruthenian version, was missing in the Ital-
ian one, but in return it provided that the Tatars were not to raid li
dominii del Regno de Polonia, et prencepalmente le terre de Rossia et
de Podolia, come sonno li castelli czoe Camyenyecz, et gli altri castelli
in quelli lochi situati, et qual se vogliano altri castelli appartenenti al
decto Regno de Polonia. is territorial denition, which distinguished
the Polish Crown from Lithuania and specically listed the former’s
two southeastern provinces (Ruthenia and Podolia) that were most
exposed to Tatar raids, was more precise than the one contained in the
Ruthenian version. Interestingly, while in the Ruthenian version Lwów
(Ukr. L’viv) was singled out as the major center, in the Italian version
it was Kamieniec Podolski (Ukr. Kam`janec’).
149
147
For an original document of Mengli Giray preserved in Ruthenian, cf. n. 123
above.
148
Esmo [. . .] k tobe [. . .] spysok [. . .] po frjažsky poslaly, žadajučy ažby ty, brat naš,
do pan’stva našoho, Koruny Polskoe, lyst svoj [. . .] v toe slovo pysany musulmanskymy
slovy pryslal; see Sigismund’s letter to Mengli from 23 December 1514, referring to his
former request, published in Pułaski, Stosunki Polski z Tatarszczyzną, p. 446.
149
See Document 16.
genghisid legacy: shaping eastern europe (1240–1523) 49
Both documents regarding Poland, the Ruthenian one from 29
October and the Italian one from 29 November, were delivered to
Sigismund early in the year 1515, probably by his returning envoy,
Myxajlo Svynjuska. Almost simultaneously, Jacek Ratomski was sent
to the Crimea along with the delayed second installment of annual
gis due for the year 1514.
150
Soon aerwards, Mengli Giray died in
April 1515.
Rebuilding the Golden Horde. e rise and fall of Mehmed Giray
(1515–1523)
A long awaited Tatar raid against Muscovy was nally eected by the
new khan, Mehmed Giray, who had played a major political role already
in the last years of his father’s reign. In 1515 Tatar troops, assisted by a
Lithuanian contingent led by Andrej Nemyrovyč, the palatine of Kiev,
invaded the Muscovian lands of Černihiv, Novhorod-Sivers’kyj, and
Starodub. While the Lithuanians, equipped with artillery, insisted on
besieging the towns that had belonged to Lithuania before 1503, the
Tatars were more interested in captives and spoils.
151
Admittedly, the
Tatar cavalry was better suited for raids and eld battles than reducing
fortied strongholds.
In his letter sent to Vasilij III in July 1515, Mehmed Giray explained
the raid by the Muscovian conquest of Smolensk against the will of his
father, who had granted Smolensk to Lithuania. As a “punishment”
and condition of reconcilement, the khan demanded that Vasilij
should return not only Smolensk, but also eight towns that had previ-
ously been “granted” by Mengli to Ivan III, but were to be restored
to Lithuania according to Mehmed’s wish, namely Brjansk, Starodub,
Počep, Novhorod-Sivers’kyj, Ryl’sk, Putyvl’, Karačev, and Radogošč’.
152
Acting as if he were indeed a distributor of the lands in question,
150
From Sigismund’s letter to Mengli Giray that was to be taken by Jacek Ratomski,
dated 23 December 1514, we learn that the king was still waiting for the documents
though the khan had notied him that they would be taken by Myxajlo upon his
return; see Pułaski, Stosunki Polski z Tatarszczyzną, p. 446.
151
Kazimierz Pułaski, “Machmet-Girej, chan Tatarów perekopskich i stosunki
jego z Polską (1515–1523),” in: idem, Szkice i poszukiwania historyczne. Serya druga
(St. Petersburg, 1898): 281–350, esp. p. 286.
152
Pamjatniki diplomatičeskix snošenij, vol. 2, pp. 152–153.
50 part one—chapter one
Mehmed consciously performed the role of the ancient khans of the
Golden Horde, granting at will vast territories to chosen favorites.
Having ascended the throne, Mehmed Giray also sent a solemn
embassy to Sigismund, consisting of Bashıbek, a member of the Shirin
clan, Augustino de Garibaldis, and a Tatar noble (mirza) named Yabuk
(or Chabuk). e envoys were received in Cracow on 25 August 1515.
Bashıbek probably delivered a now lost yarlıq of Mehmed Giray,
based on the yarlıq of his father.
153
e Crimean envoys accompanied
Sigismund on his way from Cracow to Vilnius and were sent back in
March 1516 in company of the royal envoy, Stanisław Skinder. Again,
Sigismund provided his envoy with “two letters on parchment, with
our great hanging majestic seals, one of the Polish Crown, and another
of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.”
154
Only the Ruthenian document, issued on behalf of the Grand
Duchy of Lithuania, is preserved today. It is dated 14 March 1516 and
almost identical with Sigismund’s document from 1513. e name of
Mengli Giray was duly replaced by the name of Mehmed Giray, and
the name of the former qalga, who had become the khan, by the names
of Bahadır and Alp Girays, Mehmed’s two oldest sons.
155
Lithuanian
recent territorial losses in its war against Muscovy led to an actual-
izing provision stipulating that the khan should assist Sigismund in
recapturing not only the lands lost by the latter’s predecessors, but also
those lost during his own reign (an obvious reference to Smolensk).
153
On this embassy, see Pułaski, “Machmet-Girej,” p. 288, and recently Feliks
Šabul’do, “Jarlyki (dokončanija) krymskogo xana Magmet Gireja na zemli južnoj
Rusi,” in: Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikšystės istorijos šaltiniai. Faktas. Kontekstas.
Interpretacija (Vilnius, 2007): 247–284, esp. pp. 257 and 261–262. Šabul’do’s sugges-
tion that Bashıbek brought a presently lost instrument of peace, which also served
as the basis for the document issued in 1517 by Bahadır Giray (cf. Document 18), is
supported by the fact that in 1516 the khan referred to the former great embassy of
Bashıbek Mirza that had arrived “with an oath and [a letter of] agreement” (z przysięgą
i dokończeniem); see Mehmed Giray’s letter to Sigismund, preserved in a Polish trans-
lation in Kórnik, Biblioteka PAN [hereaer, Bibl. Kórn.], ms. 222, pp. 114–118, and
published in Acta Tomiciana, vol. 4 (Poznań, 1855), p. 88. Šabul’do quotes a later
copy of this letter preserved in Bibl. Czart., ms. 32 (Teki Naruszewicza), pp. 349–354.
154
dva lysty našy na pargamenex z našymy velykymy zavesystymy maistat-
nymy pečat’my, odyn Korony Polskoe a druhyj Velykoho Knjaz’stva Lytovskoho; see
Sigismund’s letter to Mehmed Giray dated 24 March 1516, quoted aer Šabul’do,
“Jarlyki,” p. 259.
155
It is interesting that already in 1516 Mehmed’s younger brother and qalga,
Ahmed Giray, was not included in the negotiations. In 1519, Ahmed openly rebelled
against Mehmed Giray and was replaced in the post of qalga by the khan’s oldest son,
Bahadır.
genghisid legacy: shaping eastern europe (1240–1523) 51
e document was corroborated with the great majestic seal of the
Grand Duchy of Lithuania and individual seals of ten members of the
Lithuanian Council.
156
Skinder’s arrival to the Crimea coincided with the crisis of the
anti-Muscovian alliance. In the summer of 1516 a large Tatar raid,
headed by Alp Giray and other princes, reached “as far as the Tatra
mountains”—as put by a Lithuanian chronicler.
157
Although the khan
sent usual apologies for the “irresponsible youth,” in fact the Crimean
society was divided in its sympathies. Some favored an alliance with
Vilnius, others with Moscow, and many waited for the highest bid,
expressed in gis. Ivan Mamonov, Vasilij’s envoy to the Crimea,
recorded his conversations with Tatar notables held in 1516. While
Bahadır, Mehmed’s favorite and oldest son, supported an attack
against Muscovy, Ahmed Giray, the khan’s brother and qalga, was
inclined to reconcile with Vasilij and attack Lithuania, if only to frus-
trate Bahadır’s position.
158
In order to assure Sigismund of his sincerity, the khan oered to send
one of his two younger sons, Ghazi Giray, as a hostage to guarantee
the peace. As Stanisław Skinder died in the Crimea, a new envoy, Ivan
Hornostaj, was dispatched in November 1516 to negotiate the details
of the hostage’s arrival. Having met Bahadır on the Dnieper, Hornos-
taj was reassured that Ghazi would arrive in the following year and
returned to Vilnius. In April 1517, Hornostaj again le to the Crimea
to see to the fulllment of the promise, while Olbracht Gasztołd, the
palatine of Polack, set out to Čerkasy to welcome the hostage and con-
voy him to Vilnius. In return, he was to release the annual gis for the
khan, to be collected by Bahadır, who had earlier engaged to escort
the young prince.
159
Yet, Bahadır arrived with empty hands because
his mother, Nurum Sultan, refused to give her teenage son as a hos-
tage. e family quarrel was later reported by Muscovian envoys in
their letters sent to Moscow. According to one report, Nurum had
initially consented to send her son, but then, persuaded by the pro-
Muscovian faction and soened by the boy’s tears, changed her mind
and returned to Qırq Yer along with both younger sons. Infuriated
156
See Document 17.
157
Maciej Stryjkowski, Kronika polska, litewska, żmudzka i wszystkiej Rusi, vol. 2
(Warsaw, 1846), p. 388.
158
Pamjatniki diplomatičeskix snošenij, vol. 2, pp. 359–362.
159
Pułaski, “Machmet-Girej,” pp. 301–307.
52 part one—chapter one
Bahadır reproached to his father of his being a henpecked husband
(kakoj ty car’, koli tebja žonka ne slušaet; “what kind of a khan are you,
if your wife does not obey you!?”), but to no avail. In result, Gasztołd
refused to release the gis, though he sweetened Bahadır’s disappoint-
ment with some small presents, and the exchange was postponed until
the following year.
160
As the only durable eect of their meeting in
Čerkasy, Bahadır made a solemn engagement to respect the condi-
tions of his father’s yarlıq, granted to Sigismund in 1515. A copy of
Mehmed Giray’s yarlıq along with the text of his son’s oath was given
to Gasztołd and is recorded in the Lithuanian Register.
161
e document from 1517 closely resembles the yarlıq of Mengli
Giray, issued in June 1514, both in form and contents.
162
e list of
lands, “granted” to Lithuania, is almost identical.
163
Apparently, the
document was based on the now lost yarlıq of Mehmed Giray from
1515,
164
which in its turn was based on Mengli’s yarlıq from 1514. In
the heading, Bahadır is referred to in the rst person as the yarlıq’s
author, while Mehmed Giray is referred to in the third person as “my
father.” But then the clerk charged with redrawing the original yarlıq
of Mehmed Giray apparently gave up, and in the remaining part of the
document the khan, and not his son, appears in the rst person. Such
traces of careless editing are visible again and again.
165
At the end of
the yarlıq, an additional clause was added that invoked Bahadır’s oath,
sworn in the presence of Gasztołd on behalf (lit. “with the souls”) of
Bahadır, his father, his brother Alp Giray, and his cousin Hemmet
160
Bagatyr’ carevič’ poexal po kaznu bez careviča [. . .] i Olbrext Bagatyrju kazny
ne dal, tolko ego počtil pominkom ot sebja; see Pamjatniki diplomatičeskix snošenij,
vol. 2, pp. 502–503 (the report of Vasilij Šadrin); see also pp. 472–473 (the report of
Il’ja Čeliščev).
161
See Document 18 and n. 1 referring to its dating. Among the Crimean dignitar-
ies, who accompanied Bahadır in Čerkasy and swore the oath along with the Tatar
prince, one should mention Aghısh, the Shirin qaraçı, and Abdurrahman, the khan’s
lieutenant of Islamkerman regarded as the head of a pro-Lithuanian party among
the Crimean nobility; see Borys Čerkas, Ukrajina v polityčnyx vidnosynax Velykoho
knjazivstva Lytovs’koho z Kryms’kym xanatom (1515–1540) (Kiev, 2006), p. 117; on
Abdurrahman, see Syroečkovskij, “Muxammed-Geraj i ego vassaly,” p. 52.
162
Like in the yarlıq from June 1514, the wording of some clauses can be traced
back to the royal instrument from 1513; cf. n. 141 above.
163
Only Karaul is missing.
164
Cf. n. 154 above.
165
Cf. Document 18, notes 7 and 26.
genghisid legacy: shaping eastern europe (1240–1523) 53
Giray,
166
and contained his promise that on the upcoming Easter his
another brother, Maqsud Giray, would be sent as hostage to Kiev.
Later in the year 1517, Bahadır led a large raid against Muscovy and
eectively opposed the eorts of Muscovian diplomats to convince his
father towards a reconciliation. Yet, a year later these eorts succeeded.
Mehmed Giray issued a solemn şartname (Rus. šertnaja gramota) that
was delivered to Moscow by his envoy, Apaq,
167
and on 1 April 1519,
Vasilij III swore to honor its conditions by kissing the cross in the
presence of the Crimean envoy. Although the khan admitted in his
document that he was bound by the treaty with Vilnius, he engaged
to terminate his obligations and face jointly with Vasilij their common
enemies: “the children of Ahmed and the children of King Casimir.”
He also nally acknowledged the Muscovian acquisition of Lithuanian
lands, eected by 1503, promising Vasilij not to raid the latter’s lands
surrounding Starodub, Černihiv, Počep, and Homel’ in spite of the
fact that he had earlier engaged to restore them to Sigismund.
168
A
major reason lying behind this reconciliation was Mehmed’s hope that
with Moscow’s help he would conquer Astrakhan. Bahadır stated it
openly in his letter to Vasilij: “You have asked me: ‘ask your father
[. . .] to make me his serf and brother.’ And [. . .] the khan, said: ‘if he
only wants to be my brother, he should set out along with me against
166
On Hemmet Giray, see Document 18, n. 32. Notwithstanding the tensions
between his uncle, the khan, and his father, Qalga Ahmed Giray, Hemmet seemed to
have been in good relations with his cousins. In 1518, he raided Lithuania along with
Alp Giray. Aer Ahmed rebelled against the khan in 1519 and was killed by Alp Giray,
Hemmet found refuge in the Ottoman lands.
167
Apaq (Appak in Russian sources) was the leader of the pro-Muscovian faction,
who oen corresponded with Vasilij III and held conversations with his envoys; yet,
his loyalty was not unconditional as in 1521 he advised an attack against Moscow;
see Syroečkovskij, “Muxammed-Geraj i ego vassaly,” pp. 51–53. In the following gen-
erations Apaq’s clan, which came to be known as the Sulesh-oghlu (Suleševy in the
Russian sources) aer his nephew Süleyman (Suleš), was perceived as traditionally
pro-Muscovian and oen asked to promote the tsar’s interests at the khan’s court; see
Aleksandr Vinogradov, “Rod Suleša vo vnešnej politike Krymskogo xanstva vtoroj
poloviny XVI v.,” in: Tjurkologičeskij Sbornik (2005) = Tjurkskie narody Rossii i
Velikoj stepi (Moscow, 2006): 26–73.
168
Pamjatniki diplomatičeskix snošenij, vol. 2, pp. 658–660. e dating of the docu-
ment “in December 925” is confusing, since the Muslim year 925 A.H. lasted between
3 January and 22 December 1519. Apparently it was issued in December 1518 or Janu-
ary 1519. On the negotiations of 1518–1519 and the treaty conditions, cf. Xoroškevič,
Rus’ i Krym, pp. 188–195.