Kazan, Crimea and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania on the Arena of Diplomatic and Military Battles at the Turn of the 15th And 16th Centuries

Author Name(s): Almaz R. Bakhtegariyev*, Marat S. Gatin, Dina A. Mustafina, Rail R. Fakhrutdinov, Ramil R. Khairutdinov
Author Email: bahtegariev@mail.ru

Abstract

The urgency of the problem under study is conditioned by the tendency of the events reconsideration from the 15th – early 16th centuries outlined in the historical science, caused by the changes in the economic, political and social-cultural spheres, in the theoretical and methodological methods of research. The problem is also conditioned by the staying in the shadow concerning the issue of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania relations with the splinters of the Golden Horde, especially concerning the political contacts with the Kazan Khanate, which played a significant role in the struggle for political supremacy in the post-Horde space. The purpose of the article is to clarify the nature and the characteristics of the relationship of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania with two heirs of the Golden Horde – the Kazan and Crimean Khanates. The leading approach to the study of this problem is the comparative method. The study of the interstate relations of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania with the adjacent Crimean one and territorially removed from the principality by the Kazan yurts showed the existence of differences in the political line of Lithuania concerning the mentioned Tatar khanates and made it possible to find out the reasons for this. Two factors influenced the nature and the forms of studied state interrelations: 1) the presence or the absence of common borders; 2) the need to take into account the relationship between the post-Horde states and Lithuania with the Great Horde, the Ottoman Port and the strengthened Russian state. The diplomatic activity of the latter sometimes led to the change in the nature of interstate relations, conditioning the conversion of relations from diplomatic to military form, or the cessation of a military conflict, or a break of mutual contacts. The materials of the article can be used to reconstruct the general picture of state relations development in Eastern Europe during the period under review, as well as in the academic courses of lectures on general and Russian history.

Introduction

The development of interstate contacts in the western part of Eurasia after the breakdown of Dzhuchiev Ulus and the change of political relation participants is one of the most interesting problems, requiring clarification of the role and the intentions of each of the state organisms claiming the Golden Horde heritage, the determination of their perception by states that have maintained political unity, and the identification of diplomatic tie nature, form and dynamics between specific parties [1]. Indeed, with a relative synchronism of development, they had to build relationships, overcome political, military and religious (ideological) differences. Eastern Europe was not only the territory that became the nucleus of successive empires. It was also the scene for the clash of cultures that differed significantly from each other, in particular, became the place of confrontation between the two world religions – Christianity (both Orthodox and Catholic branches) and Islam – eventually transformed into tolerant interaction [2]. During the period under review, the Turkish Sultan was the caliph, the head of all Muslims, and this status inevitably assumed the performance of his functions as a defender of the faithful. This meant an invisible presence of Sultan Turkey behind the backs of Muslim yurts in Eastern Europe [3]. The turn of two centuries turned out to be filled with a very fine diplomatic game, in which it began to take part and achieve profitable results for itself and the Moscow principality the power of which began to increase [4]. The European powers made unsuccessful attempts to make a conflict between the Ottoman Porte and the Moscow state. Often diplomatic intricacies developed into military conflicts of both a local and a more scaled nature [4]. In these conditions it is extremely important to determine the forms and the nature of contacts between the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the two Tatar yurts, the Crimean one, which turned out to be vassal dependent on the Ottoman state, and the Kazan one, which fell under the protectorate of the Moscow principality, interrupted by the submission to the authority of the Crimean Gireys.

Conclusions

This “distortion” in the reconstruction of the history of diplomatic ties between the political entities in Eastern Europe in the late fifteenth and first half of the sixteenth centuries is undoubtedly connected with the extreme narrowness of the problem source. Unfortunately, there are few documentary evidences reflecting the chosen theme. The act materials and ambassadorial books on the connections of the Kazan Khanate with the Moscow Principality perished in the era of the “Kazan” wars and in the Time of Troubles, and the sources kept in the archives of Poland, Lithuania and other countries remain extremely unknown. And 22 ambassadorial books on Russia’s relations with the Crimea kept in the Russian state archive of ancient acts, were practically not published, if we do not take into account the extracts published by N.I. Novikov in the XVIIIth century and extracts that appeared in the collections of the Russian Historical Society in the nineteenth century.

Summary

The study of political contacts between the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Crimean and Kazan yurts showed that these relations differed in character and form. The existence of common borders and frequent military raids on the outskirts of the principality, which needed the means of existence of the Crimean Tatars, on the one hand, and the reluctance to strengthen the Moscow principality, on the other, forced the Lithuanian princes to exert efforts to prevent possible attacks of the Crimeans, and try to persuade the khan to join against the Grand Duke. At the same time Lithuania supported the Great Horde, in the elimination of which Moscow and the Crimea were interested. The Kazan Khanate established by Genghis Khan followers was territorially removed from Lithuania and was claimed by Moscow and the Crimea was perceived by Lithuania (which was not in a military confrontation with it) as a potential ally against the main “enemy” – the Moscow state. And if the Lithuanian prince perceived the Crimean yurt as an enemy, with whom it is more profitable to live in a “weak” peace, then he treated Kazan as the potential ally against the Moscow prince. A certain binding role was assigned to the Ottoman Porte, the “ruler” and the defender of the Muslims in the combination played out by the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.

Acknowledgements

The work is performed according to the Russian Government Program of Competitive Growth of Kazan Federal University.

References

  1. D. Grekov, A.Yu. Yakubovsky, “Education and development of the Golden Horde in the XIII-XIV centuries. Part I.”, The Golden Horde and its fall, M.-L., 1950.
  2. V Trepavlov, “The Golden Horde in the XIVth century”, Moscow, 2010.
  3. D. Smirnov, “Crimean Khanate under the rule of the Ottoman Porte in the 18th century before its joining it to Russia”, Odessa, 1889.
  4. M. Schwab, “Russian-Crimean relations of the mid 16th – the first years of the 17th centuries in the domestic historiography of the 1940-ies-2000-ies”, Surgut, 2011.
  5. Pulasky. “Relations with Mengli-Giray”. Polish relations with Tatarshchina in the second half of the 15th century, Krakow-Warsaw, p. 449, 1881.
  6. Kolyanovsky. “Crime problem in the history of the Jagiellonian dynasty”. Historical essays, Lvov, pp. 279-300, 1935.
  7. Podgoretsky. “The Crimean Khanate and its relations with Poland”, Warsaw, 359 p., 1987.
  8. Okhmyansky. “The organization of defense in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania before the attacks of the Crimean Tatars in the XV-XVI centuries”, SMHW, V.5. pp. 161-398, 1960.
  9. Kolodzeychik. “The Crimean Khanate and Poland-Lithuania: International diplomacy on the European periphery (XV-XVIII centuries): the study of peace treaties with subsequent annotated documents”, Leiden-Boston, XXXVI, 1109 p., 2011.
  10. Ulyanovsky. “The Kiev Voivode in the Crimea”. Sugdey’s Collection, Vol. 2, Kiev-Sudak: Academic periodics, pp. 357-373, 2005.
  11. Cherkas, “Steppe Lithuanian shield”, Ukrainian army of Gediminovich (XIV-XVI centuries), Kiev, 144 p., 2011.
  12. Gulevich, “Kazimir Jagailovich and Mengli-Girey (from hostile attitudes to friendship)”, scientific and historical journal, Issue 1, Kiev, pp. 40-66, 2013.
  13. Gayvoronsky, “The Lords of two continents.” V. 1, Crimean Khans of XV-XVI centuries and the struggle for the legacy of the Great Horde, Crimea-Bakhchisaray, pp. 25-50, 2010.
  14. V. Pylypchuk, “The Tatar Policy of Casimir IV, 1480-1492”, The Golden Horde Civilization, Issue 8, Kazan, pp. 312-325, 2015.
  15. Mustafina D.A., I.A. Mustakimov “Crimean yurt and the Brilliant Port: the historiography of relationships in the era of the government of Devlet Giray (the reflection of the Crimean-Ottoman relations in the domestic historiography prior to the beginning of the 90s of the XXth century)”, Echo of Ages, No. 1-2, 211, 2017.
  16. L. Zaitsev, “Between Moscow and Istanbul. The Juchid states, Moscow and the Ottoman Empire (early XVth – first half of the 16th century). Essays”, Moscow, 216 p., 2004.
  17. V. Vinogradov. “Russian-Crimean relations. 50-ies – the second half of the 70-ies of the XVIth century”, V. 1-2, Moscow, 2007.
  18. A. Lyubaya, “Institute of mortgages in the diplomatic relations of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Crimean Khanate at the end of the XVth – first quarter of the XVIth century.” Medieval Turkic-Tatar states, Issue 3, Kazan, pp. 56-74, 2011.
  19. A. Voronin. “From the history of the relationships between the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Tatars at the end of the XVth – first third of the XVIth century. Khan Shyg-Ahmet, Studia Historica Europae Orientalis = The studies on the history of Eastern Europe, Minsk, pp. 127-149, 2011.
  20. L. Horoshkevich, “Russia and the Crimea. From union to confrontation. The end of the XVth – the beginning of the XVIth centuries”, Moscow, 336 pp., 2001.
  21. N. Florya, “Two charters by Sahib-Girey”, the Slavs and their neighbors. The Slavs and the nomadic world, Vol. 10, Moscow, pp. 236-240, 2001.

579 total views, no views today

Download PDF File

About the author: admin