After the Zaporizhia. Dissolution, Reorganization, and Transformation

CEU eTD Collection Second Reader: Professor AlexeiMiller Professor Reader: Second Rieber Alfred Professor Supervisor: In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of the degree for requirements the of fulfillment Inpartial Dissolution, reorganization, and transformation of borderland military in 1775-1835 military borderland of Central European University European Central After the Zaporizhia. History Department Budapest, Hungary Budapest, Andriy Posun’ko Andriy Master of Arts of Master Submitted to Submitted 2012 By CEU eTD Collection but also arather valuable asset. character well as asthe Frontier was notalways only obstaclean in state-building process statemany policies, traditionally as concessionary,portrayed in havefact could intentional the to more and more centralising state. The author reassess this experience and argues that the whole process theof borderland integration isportrayed as a resistance of the Cossacks rule. imperial emphasis the state flexibility in difficulties ison region and borderlandpolicies the of of the as interplay Frontierbetween the state tradition need resourcesand extraction. for The but project, as just not integrationist isanalysedthe communities reorganisation Frontier of communitiesin New the region Russia oftheat the turn 18 Author. accordance with instructionssuch the may made without not be written the of permission librarian. apartofany This form page must such made. copies Further copies made in andAuthor lodged in Centralthe European Library. Details obtainedfrom be may the the by given instructions the with in accordance only made may be part, or full in either Traditionally, the history of the Cossackdom in the region is ended in the 1775 and theCossack towards policies imperial Russian onthe focuses The study Copyright in the text of this thesis rests with the Author. Copies by any process, Statement of Copyright Abstract i th – 19 th centuries. The centuries. CEU eTD Collection finished. their supportpreceding supervisor Svitlana and Kaiuk my friend Anastasiiadearest Zhukova. Without and the literature on literature andwith general research process. they scannedadoptedthe mantle ofmore experiencedcomrades and greatly helpedboth with advice the and sent me this project Eszter Timar.Without instructor Writing themthis much could research be less persuasive. would never beLaszlo Kontler (who endured me in their classes thefor whole year). work. For the same reason,interesting ideas from his class which,hopefully, found their proper implementationI inam this immensely grateful also to Professorsproject is thanks him,to while all shortcomings are entirely my own. Tolga Esmer andAlfred Rieber for his kind patience and helpful guidance.work on this project. Everything First of all, I am espesically thankful to my supervisor,that Professor is of value in this Finally, I would like to thank my parents (to whom I anyway owe everything), my who Kolesnikova, and Tatiana Kripachenko Tatiana mentioning avoid not I can Also I am grateful to my Thesis Workshop instructor Professor Karl Hall and Academic expressI gratitudealso my second to my reader, Professor Alexei Miller, for some I would like to express my sincere gratitude to all people, who helped me in the Acknowledgements ii CEU eTD Collection Bibliography...... 68 Conclusions...... 66 Chapter 3: Cossack rights –from traditional to legally acknowledged...... 49 Chapter 2: Dissolution ...... 24 andEarly Attempts Integration of 7 Chapter 1: The Cossacks between the Frontier andthe State.Theoretical Framework...... 1 Introduction...... 3.2Reorganisation andTransformation (till 1835)...... 58 3.1Danubian ...... 50 alternatives (1778-1828) 2.3Restoration of the Cossack hosts (1775-1791)...... 40 2.2Abolished, Disbanded, andDestructed (1764-1775)...... 31 2.1The story so far (1700-1764)...... 25 ...... 18 1.3The State 1.2The Frontier...... 13 8 1.1The Cossacks...... Table Contentsof iii CEU eTD Collection theoretical frameworks, the one of the Frontier and the other of statethe building, to evidence. Itinstead,takes, anew approach. Thepurpose of this is apply work to two andsuccessfully implement them. constant the coups, palace empireeventually had enough internal stability reformspursue to nationalism Germanor imperialist claims yet– had emerge. afterto Third, the era of protection. By Russia1783 theannexed Khanate itself.Second, new pretenders –Ukrainian 1774 the treaty of Kuchuk-Kainardzhi forced the Crimean Khanate to give up Ottoman territory territory in the Eternal Peace Treaty.By theof the end 18 players. In Poland1686 formally therecognized Left-Bank of the Dnieper as Russian Frontiercontested intoaninternal by province weakening even or eliminating other major unique. First, a single power – the Russian Empire – for a time managed to make a Bohdan Lanovyk and Mykola Lazarovych, 200-208. 2008), Akademiia, Kyievo-Mohylians'ka (Kyiv: ofUkraine] history military the theadministrativemilitary of and units reorganization province. the the Cossack of life dissolution notenddespite did martyrs. Nevertheless, the regional how identity shaping works. National narratives,when incapable of creating heroes, create correct. Few wonder if there wasany otherpossible course of actions forthe empire. Thisis Few, however,whether“suppression”wonder the word “abolition” more or be would of the cradleUkrainian of democracy, Zaporozhian Sich, the by Russian army in 1775. Oleksandr Boiko, Oleksandr 2006), 195. Bazhan, and Oleh Mytsyk Iurii see examples, brightest the For it. has reader Education” 1 The story is usually the same from textbook to textbook and almost any “Recommendedby the Ministry of My study of the late 18 By the end of the 18 Every Ukrainian schoolboy knows the theharrowing about “brutalstory destruction” Istoriia Ukrainy th [the history of Ukraine] (Kyiv: Akademiia, 1999), 164. – early 19 th century Cossacks does not depend on newly uncovered newly on depend not does Cossacks century Istoriia Ukrainy Istoriia Introduction th centuries the situation in the Pontic area was quite 1 [the history of Ukraine] (Kyiv: Znannia-Press, (Kyiv: of Ukraine] history [the th century there was no Poland. In Istoriia Ukrainy [the 1 CEU eTD Collection bringing together several casestudies, reinterpreting them with therespect to recent analysis of Cossacksthe in perspective the wider difficult. much more Iseektofill gap, this different, sometimes incompatible, methodology and theoretical approaches, making the use scholars different These separately. host each study scholars hosts, different individual Third, when a problem of the late cossackdom becomes separated into the histories of contemporary thestates, main studies theof HostKuban’ are done by Russian scholars. Cossacks when the host is resettled in the Kuban’. And today, due to the boundaries of historians. on is primarilyUkrainian the territories of contemporary state studied Ukrainian by even onthehigher, national level. example, For the existence of theBlack hostSea Cossack one problem intomany smaller sub-problems. Second,the same fragmentation can be traced While regionalistic approaches deep,allow focused case studies, they artificially breakdown theUkrainian grand narrative consequently, and, are primarily studied in regional centers. the dissolution of Zaporizhia and incorporation into the monarchy, lose theirconceptualize it. importance in region not as an isolated process with its own means objectives,and but tocontextualize and is toanalyzeimperial the policies the towards post-Zaporozhian Cossacks in the Pontic questions with toregard the history of the Therefore, cossackdom. the object of this research both toexplore the utility limitationsand of general theoretical schemes andto generate new – early 19 particular case of imperial policies towards the Zaporozhian former Cossacks in latethe 18 Ternavskii, Dmitrii Sen', Alexei Volvenko, Nataliia Korsakova, Viktor Chumachenko. Viktor Korsakova, Nataliia Volvenko, Alexei Sen', Dmitrii Ternavskii, 3 resettlement of the host. tothe due change radically not could which aspect, the – culture material and melee weapons Cossack the Shyian,Ihor Sapozhnykov.From the Russian side it is Boris Frolov, who, nevertheless, deals primarily with 2 Some examples of Russian (mainly from Rostov and Krasnodar) historians, working on this topic: Nikolai topic: this on working historians, Krasnodar) and Rostov from (mainly Russian of examples Some Roman Malenko, Liudmyla problem: mentioned the with dealt who scholars, Ukrainian a few just To name The needfor thiscontextualization is threefold. First, hosts, thelateCossack after 2 th Nonetheless, Ukrainian historiography quickly abandons its interest in same the interest its abandons quickly historiography Ukrainian Nonetheless, centuries. Such use theoreticalof works with a specific case study may serve 2 th 3 CEU eTD Collection 5 dissolution of the Sich itself,1775 attempts of the governmentaccommodate to Cossacks intothe imperial society,the and the early attempts to reorganize Cossack them. with negotiating or warriors forces. On the wishing preserve the lifestyle,their traditional repressingto state, either and borderland In the following chapters I will emigration. “everyday or thenewresistance” system, to wereadaptation only possibilities concentrate exactly on this conflictstruggle between and the the contestedCossacks,in nature the of the17 region, while byinto theiraffairs.Still, state growing interference and opposed communities resented the end of the 18th centurywas achievedthrough powerful coercion and control. Naturally, traditional Cossack Cossacks’ deal with the cultural dimension ignored by Tilly,yet hardto ignore today. also as a symbol and a myth. scholars accept the Frontier not only as amilitary or settlementboundary borderland, but Thus, it will form one factors, so,his materialistic,even ifsomewheresimplified,hardtheoretical isignore. argument to basis forTilly’s concept of capital myand coercion acknowledges both geopoliticalstudy. and economic On the otherwarfare and external factors in the of states,development andthe Frontier thesis. Charles hand, more and more mentioned, my approachesmain bestate will building theories, which stress therole of Dnieper Cossacks willand provide a brief thereview of theoretical literature. AsI already methodological frameworks,andcreating a new generalizedpicture. 4 For the evolution of the Frontier concept, see subchapter concept, Frontier of the evolution the For Charles Tilly, State State building oftheRussian Empire presents uswith acase,when centralization In the first chapter of this research I will outline the historical background of the the historical background of In thefirstchapterofthis researchIwill outline The secondchapter deals with historicalthe Cossackof integration,background pre- th century Cossacks had many opportunities to maneuver thanks to interstate Coercion, Capital and European States 5 The latest interpretations of the Frontier concept willhelpto concept interpretationsoftheFrontier Thelatest 3 (Cambridge: Blackwell, 1992). Blackwell, (Cambridge: 1.2 The Frontier The 1.2 . 4 CEU eTD Collection empire was spending resources bothto bring of migrants the migrants and imperial back – again,officials,the alternative Cossack communities outside growing Russian Empire attracted attention why was eager this? to preventGeneral the recruitmentpopulation totheSouthern a waveprovinces caused of emigration aswell.The of existence from leaving. The was a typical Frontier tradition. In the 1790s the introduction of serfdom and army empires, hoping preserve theirto lifestyle. traditional all, Afterchange a sovereign ofthe wanttheiraccept new to and toresettledecided status the to Ottoman Habsburg and on thebe formation of the Black Sea, Ekaterinoslav,Greek-Albanian, Tatar, andBug hosts. add “Hetman” to his titles? In order to answer these questions, the focus of this chapter will supporting roles, like customs and quarantines? Ambitions of the local governor, wishing to Cossack units. What was the reason? military The dire need? Lack of manpowerfor completely. The Sich yet,was suppressed, government the rather quickly created new became much more decisiveinstead and of the gradual incorporation the hostwas dissolved peacefully limiting autonomy and reorganizing the host. However, in 1775 empire’s course 18 conflicts between the officers ( Cossacks’ “rights freedoms” and were generally respected, the empire exploitedexisting spread oftheimperial bureaucracy in the Southern region well. Whileas traditional missions and later either disbanded or added to the already established hosts. established already the to added or disbanded either later and missions for several just recruited units, Cossack short-living smaller, numerous existed also there hand, other the On chronicle of the guard Cossack units] (Saint Petersburg, 1912), 24-26. Hetmanate one hand, thestate hadalready gainedexperience having successfully integratedthe see Vladimir Shenk, ed., Shenk, see Vladimir example, For times. imperial the in already hosts Cossack as units of these perception by and Cossacks actual Inclusion ofGreek-Albanian and Tatar Hosts is justified bothby very similar status of these irregulars to the and Shyian. Roman Bachyns’ksa, Olena 6 I list the hosts, which are considered Cossack by contemporary Ukrainian historians Liudmyla Malenko, Liudmyla historians Ukrainian contemporary by Cossack considered are which hosts, the I list th century there was a plan to purchase theloyalty of the Zaporozhian elite,thus The next, third, chapter will start with the exodus of those Cossacks, who did not and Slobodian Kazach’i voiska: khronikigvardeiskikh kazach’ikh chastei regiments. Sincethe thereearly 1730s wasagradual and careful starshyna ) and rank-and-file Cossacks. In the middle of the 4 [the Cossack hosts: The Cossack hosts: [the 6 CEU eTD Collection only in national historiographies, but also in studies of the general state building process in empire. the obligations legally were confirmed andCossack special status was finally acknowledgedby of the Russian noconnectionor thepreviouswith tradition similarwere more they tothe regularregiments army than preserved only their of externalformal organization. attributes and Having traditional little to their research in predecessors.general, from because 1835 anew erafor the cossackdom began.Hosts and chapter the this third date of closing the will be estate.separate closedStatute This On the other hand, Hosts’ rights and ennobled. In 1835 with the new Statute ( or into regular troops, while theirofficers were transferredinto the imperial army and military reforms in the region could be completed, yet thestate changedits course again. in back There 1820s. the werenopressing military needs, the process of administrative and brought were émigrés propagandists, and agents emissaries, Russian of the work to thanks Ultimately,projects integration. of itsambitious forced the government topostpone more once which pressure, external countervailing the and theprovince of incorporation continue maintained. Iwill stability had tobe on thisinteraction need concentrate between the to Napoleonic wars, however thesouthern had to border be andprotected region’s internal home to become the newly established Azov Cossack Host. move beyond the Russianto repressive meanshaveseem –all played toa spatialrole. framesThe thiswill of chapter Empire topolicies – asubtle move, partthe of establishing new,loyal regional identity without resortingTransdanubianprestige ofthe state, the advertisement new to of colonize, region borderland management Sich until its members returned At the turn ofthecentury regular Russian regimentswere widely used in the In general, the of the imperialtopic in reforms the Southern Ukraine is important not In the late 18 late the In th century century Cossackscommon weretransformed eitherinto state peasants Polozhenie 5 ) ofservice the Cossacks became a CEU eTD Collection national identities. national symbol, used in the commemoration, myth-making and attempts to shape both a and regional phenomenon historical and asa both reorganization borderland military of the problem understanding of these reforms the willstrengthen that thisproject hope, it. I andof in Frontiers role a Eastern Europe and will be a helpful basis for further studies dealing with 6 CEU eTD Collection was also placefor negotiations andcompromises. Thusmy second objective moves beyond empire andactual power toimplementneeded transformations decisively and quickly, there andgradual Despite cautious. thegeneral plan of the further integration region intothe almost uncontested dominance over the Pontic region. However, imperial policies were since it seems that centralization was just a mean notand an end in itself. the rationale for centralization.thegeneral policy of centralizationimperial and unification. What is usually disregarded, is So, my question here willin justastep Cossacks was ofthe is transformation that be phenomenon ofthis interpretation the reasons for such policies, towards the was its Empire question. changing attitude The traditional Cossack questions. twoadditional with interesting, starting make the try more story windmills. Iwillstill to fighting like narratives, old challenge not Iwill now for Therefore, entities? two only challenge ontheir owngrounds. Afterall, howmany possible relations can be there between Yet, in simplicity lies pious defenders of the Orthodoxy,theyand or were rebels and mutineers, whocreated havoc. guards theborder honorable inner becoming consequently strengthdynasty, the of servants loyal the were of such approaches – they are especially hard to story about the Tsar and the Cossacks as a play only for two actors. (Oxford: Westview Press, 1999), 5. 1999), Press, Westview (Oxford: 7 Thomas Barrett, At The Edge Of Empire: The Terek Cossacks And The North Caucasus Frontier, 1700-1860 Second, I am dealing with the late 18 First, there is little argument against the fact, that during theduring fact, 18 that little against the First, thereis argument Two-person Two-person plays are Nevertheless, usually boring. the narrative tellstraditional the Chapter 1: The Cossacks between the Frontier and theState. Frontier the and between The Cossacks Chapter 1: Theoretical Framework 7 th – early 19 th centuries when Russia achieved Russia when centuries 7 th Either the Cossacks century century the Russian CEU eTD Collection mountaineers, Greeks, andSlavic Turkic or in peoples, but the sources there are also traces Jews,of Western Caucasian Europeans. In were no lessindividual diverse. Naturally,in the Black Sea region most of them were fromeither cases it was possibleof tales to impressto find neighbors andthe glorious pillage of the Tatars perceivingladies.or frontierwarfare as an adventure anda source The ethnic and religious refugees,religious outlaws,landlessgentry,higher nobility wishing to participate either in sources of the Cossacks gatherers, peasantsenserfment, escaping from the nomadsfrom frontier,other side the of Cossacks. Thesocial origins ofthe cossackdom were extremely huntersdiverse – and stable non-frontier areas. among social structures,worldviews stereotypes and that were even atypical alienthe or to evolved inhabitants frontier a consequence, As population. borderland the of lifestyle the environment, the strong presence of theand “other”, general instability certainly influenced societies centralof the regions. The remotenessof state control, the dangerous natural 1.1 The Cossacks x x x is threefold: chapter present the ofthepace autonomies' integration andagents behindthese influences. Thus, the purpose of the empire-provincebasic the dichotomy to look for otherfactors,whichinfluencedthe to assess their particular utility for the present purposes. the present for utility particular assess their to studied; to circumscribe theoretical approaches with which this region andits inhabitants can be focus; in region the on background historical general provide to Such Such borderland communities theof Eastern European aresteppes known as Communities living on the periphery of empires rarely evolve the same way as the 8 CEU eTD Collection Volga rivers as organizationalpowerful centers, while the presence of the nobility among Dmytro Iavornyts’kyi, Dmytro useful: and beinteresting also may studies of Cossack fathers founding the by works classical the However, kordoni Ievropy voiska even Africans among the Cossacks. among Africans even 8 9 Ukrainy-Rusy Istoriia of 7 vol. 1625]”, year the till times Cossack [the 1625 roku do chasy “Kozats’ki Hrushevskyi, Mykhailo 1892). Skorokhodova, I.N. Tipografiia Petersburg: the early 16 By Peninsula. Balkan the from brotherhoods military than numbers greater much achieve Uskoks, the South-Slavic Hajduks, and the Early Ottoman Ghazis. living primarilyonraiding theand Cossacks thissense pillage. In to Adriatic wereclose Muslims gave risethe andweapons frontier theChristians survive. the had between Still, to to bear children, to specificand families with colonies overseas the to resettling military Europeans, Western Even arms. without organizationsbut a military community. Undoubtedly,on many frontiers existence wouldbe impossible (orders theshaped Cossack for community in unique ways.First, Cossacksnot just militarized, were some, bands existed alongfor the vast Eurasian frontiers. Onthe other, geographical andsocial factors others), only nobles hadthe required education, training and ambitions tobecome the Cossack elite. colonels. Whilesocial mobility was possible at the borderlands, in the majority of cases should take into account, that runaway serfs verycould rarely forbecome, instance, and exaggeratenot egalitarianism this stillweshould ratherbrotherhood was widespread, of brought egalitarian ideastheir to organization.Cossack officers were electedandthe sense For the latest comprehensive study of the Cossack origins, see Viktor Brekhunenko, see Viktor origins, Cossack the of study comprehensive latest Forthe The first reliable appearances of the Cossacks in chronicles are dated 1444, 1502, 1538. See Shenk, 1538. 1502, 1444, are dated inchronicles Cossacks ofthe appearances reliable The first , 5. Second, the great open spaces theof Eurasian allowed steppes the Cossacks to On the onehand, thecossackdomis only one example many from societies, having them around environment dangerous the and the Cossacks of origins Various th century [the Cossacks in the Europe’s steppe frontier] (Kyiv,2011), 93-111, 147-165. [the history of Ukraine-Rus] (Kyiv-Lviv, 1909). Istoriia zaporozhskikh kazakov 9 the first Cossack hosts had already existed on the Dnieper, Don, and 8 9 [the history of the Zaporozhian Cossacks] (Saint Kozaky na stepovomu Kazach’i CEU eTD Collection assimilate. Zaporizhia formed due to Polish defense policy in the 15 Crimeanthe it thearea thatand South Khanateto wasthe empire longest to the took the Cossacks of the Hetmanate. 18 identities. national or regional of shaping in the symbols powerful became ancient, most the and numerous the most outside empires was romanticized in the 19 region, Cossacks' fate decided. another was From point, the long tradition offree life this situation could not last forever and onepoint ofview, struggle. theFrom atthe inter-imperial from sametimebenefiting status, the moment one power achieved dominance warriors,in lived far from centersthe of power and could maintain their more or less independent possible. 11 (Chernihiv,1996), 32-42. Hetmanshchyna. as 80.000. century could field 20.000 – 30.000 warriors and by the 1630s wagedguerrilla their warfare in foreststhe mountains,and the Dnieper Cossacks numbers in the early 17 are estimated regions of 12 and “traditional andand freedoms privileges”. their ranks gave Cossacks the idea of estate rights and rhetoric like “brotherhood knights”of 10 Brekhunenko, Following the established tradition, I use “Zaporozhians” or “Zaporozhian Host” when speak about the about speak when Host” or “Zaporozhian I “Zaporozhians” use tradition, established the Following Serhii Lepyavko, Serhii th century existed as three distinct sub-communities: the Zaporozhians, the Slobodians and the Slobodians Zaporozhians, the sub-communities: distinct as three existed century The Zaporozhian Host was a cradle of the cossackdom in the region. It bordered the The cossackdom, which later national historiography claimed to be Ukrainian, in the Balkan unlike Cossacks, the – role another played factor geographical the Third, Zaporiz’kaSich 11 Such numbers made existence of large formation rather than dispersed bands Kozaky na stepovomu kordoni, The Cossacks of the Sloboda region ( region Sloboda the of The Cossacks Kozats’ki viiny XVI st. v Ukraini or Vol’nosti Viiska Zaporiz’kogo 12 159-163. th 10 century andthe Zaporozhian andDon hosts, as 10 theHajduks While in small organized units Slobozhanshchyna) [the Cossack wars of the 16 . Under the “Hetmanate” I mean the region of region I meanthe “Hetmanate” the . Under will be called “Slobodians”. be called will th – 16 – th century in Ukraine] th centuries –or, th CEU eTD Collection prolonged warfare of the mid 17 the to spheres.Due civil in and both military power actual achieved their officers where during the war of1648-1681. Left-Bank Ukrainebecame a core for registered Cossacks, where Cossack customs andtraditions were not indigenous, but where they were exported to terms. better in maneuvering between differentstates continued negotiationsand with tootherget powers of the Russian crown. In reality, being on the edge of the Frontier, Zaporozhians were adept intervention of Russia Crimea,and theCossacks switchedsides becamea and protectorate andstruggle ofthe periphery autonomyfor in Poland-Lithuania andlater ledto the revolt peasant conflict, religious as a started which 1648–1681, of war civil the during 1654, often andwishingrevolted, to renegotiate the their possibility terms andof service. for the Crown. Naturally, those left out of the register and without pay, stayed at Zaporizhia partial success forthe Cossacksa small number– ofthem became “registered” mercenaries serve theright Southern asdefenders toof the border from Tatars. This struggle wasa theand their Unionestate as amilitary for recognition struggling Polish-Lithuanian the with Consequently,the civil war in the region continued till Empire. the Ottoman and the late 1680s. Crimean Khanate, the Russia, Poland, by supported were Hetmanate ofthe factions Different long. last not did alliance yet this Sweden, against war the joined and Russia truce signed Russia and In 1654 Russia started the war against Poland.In 1655 Sweden declared the war on Poland.In 1656 Poland 15 14 June 04 2012. http://www.cossackdom.com/book/bookkordon.html.accessed 2001), (Zaporizhia:Tandem-U, cossackdom] Ukrainian of the of emergence afactor as of Europe was traditionally weak, although in the 16 adventurers, warriors,and pillagers of all sorts. The link between any stateZaporizhia and the toinitially localself-organization the anddue population of emerged attracted one can say, lack such of policies. 13 Initial revolt in the Poland began in 1648. Almost immediately the Crimea intervened to support the rebels. the support to intervened Crimea the immediately Almost 1648. in began Poland the in revolt Initial Ibid. Serhii Lepyavko, Serhii To the North-West was theHetmanate orthe Left-Bank Ukraine. It was theregion Velykyi Kordon Ievropy iak faktor stanovlennia ukrainskoho kozatstva th century 13 It wasatypical borderlandmilitary community,which 15 the Hetmanate heavily was depopulated and the 11 th – early 17 th centuries Cossacks herewere [the great Frontier great [the 14 In CEU eTD Collection Cossack autonomies into the imperial administration which into involvedwas a the imperial Cossack administration autonomies process specifics of each area. from region to region and were influenced both by the geographical position and social autonomy.nature The and the speed of their integration process by the state were different privileges were derived from the will ofthe monarch, who couldrevoke them any moment. Slobozhanshchyna wasyoung a region without lasting traditions to preserve and all its and privileges thefor colonists were initially granted by sovereign.the Hence, autonomy that was area this of trait important The regions. neighboring the from refugees began only in the second half of the 17 war, in this area such structure civil the 1648-1681 aresultof as changed drastically structure thesocial Hetmanate region, was created – the active colonizationin theHetmanate.the Field,wastoeastof If between borderland Wild Russia and of Krytyka, 2006), accessed 04 June 2012. http://history.franko.lviv.ua/yak_r5-1.htm. 17 the of half second the during leaders Cossack local the and Tsar the between negotiations general, the privileges oftheHetmanate granted, werenot but contractual, a result of community and sharpenedthe social tensions within Cossackthe estate. the As for region in power-vacuum in theregion polarized previously or lessmore egalitarian Cossack refugees intothe rank-and-fileCossack atsame the time when Cossack filledtheofficers Oldnoble elites were also butchered,had toescape managed or tojoin the rebels. localsto militarize had in to survive,order consequently becoming Cossacks themselves. kintsia XVIII st.kintsia 16 Nataliia Iakovenko, “Kozats’ka era [the Cossack Age],” in Age],” Cossack [the era “Kozats’ka Iakovenko, Nataliia th century, atatime whenlocal elites werestill in a negotiate.position to Since incorporationthe of the Cossack intounits the regular army and ofthe of tradition long a with communities military were Cossacks the summarize, To Slobozhanshchyna [essay on the history of Ukraine since the ancient times till the end of the 18 (from the slobody th century, sped up by the atrocities of war and mass 12 –the local largethe namefor settlements), Narys istorii Ukrainy z naidavnishykh chasiv do chasiv naidavnishykh z Ukrainy istorii Narys Slobozhanshchyna th century] (Kyiv: century] 16 Influx of at least at CEU eTD Collection ȱ renders the exercise of true governmentdespotic impossible solong as slavery is unheard A tyranny automatically is...... existencethe regulated by of free land,which ofitself wrote: 18 Matvei Liubavskii, also held similarheldMatvei Liubavskii, also positions. create a viable andfollowers, Kliuchevskii HisVasilii to infrastructure. population, and statehad pay to in order to defendits vast from borders thenomads,to supply thefrontier colonization in his country’s history, being less optimistic and stressing the cost which the In the midimage of the virgin Wild West and its appeal19th to the agrarian part of the American society. iscentury not new. In the early 1830s Alexis deRussian Tocqueville described 1.2 The theFrontier already historian existing poetic Sergei how my case study fits larger conceptual frameworks. Solov'Charles Tilly's works on imperialto the policies, these policies Europeanthemselves have to be studied. To doso, I will apply state-building state-building the totheories Frontierthesis.study Afterall,to the reaction the of population process to my case researchincorporated by theand state. seeA possible solution to this problemthe region increasedby much theand Cossacks weremay ultimately disseminated and lie in the addition of the deal with the 19 However, while perfectly suitablefor Early Modern ittimes, needstobesupplemented to interplay. It seems natural to sidestwo theapply – empireits and one needs borderlands at – least twoapproaches study to this the Frontier thesis to the study of borderland warriors. 17 mper Alfred J. R J. Alfred Henry Nash Sm ɿ o. Studies of New Imperial History and Nationalism in the Post-Soviet Space The idea ofgreat open spaces andtheir colonization importantas an factor in history ɿ eber, “Chang eber, ɿ th, th century circumstances, when the Frontier was closing, state control over closing,statecontrol theFrontier was when circumstances, century 9ɿ rg ɿ n Land. The The Amer n Land. ɿ ng Concepts and Construct and Concepts ng ɿ can West as Symbol and the Myth the and Symbol as West can 13 18 ɿ ons of Front of ons In 1885 the Italian scholar Achille InLoria 1885 the Achille scholar Italian ɿ ers: A Comparat A ers: ɟ v emphasized the role of (New York, 1950), 138. 1(2003), 42. ɿ ve Approach,” Ab- 17 CEU eTD Collection accessed 04 June 2012. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/22994/22994-h/22994-h.htm. 20 (1959):64, 279. abandoning him andsetting up for themselves upon an unoccupied territory. of; for the subjects always have a way avoidingof oppression of the sovereign by 19 dual (or evendual (or triple) loyalties. Third,he emphasizedthe bi-directional exchange between the the inhabitants habitpersistent of borderland toshift their easily allegiances very andtheir incorporation of the society one another.into Second,he notice wasfirst the to and outline in the Frontier zones, constant movement “empty land” with other society, stressing the influencesofcultural between different cultures the population in and out, and the problemLattimore. His contribution to the Frontierconcept was threefold.First,he replaced Turner’s of non-commercial. and both are popularized by both culture, mass are exploited in all possible ways –commercial the cowboy and the Cossack are striking. Both are glorifiedduring secondary education, toadapted other narratives nowadaysand the resemblance between the popular images of historical narrative identity and shaped by this narrative. Even this more, myth getseasily the scholarly dimension. Turner created a myth, which became the basis forthe American already revised andeitherbeen refinedthe discarded, or ofhis value liesonly work not in struggle. thesocial for safety-valve (thus, possibly, perceivingIndians of as elementthenatural the environment aswell),and a civilization, colonization theof empty space, where greatestthe naturechallenge is forces presented in 1893. For Turner,Tocqueville andLoria)his and “Thethe Significance of FrontierinAmericanHistory”, the Frontier was a movingJackson border between wilderness Turner and (who, naturally, was aware of and influenced by the works of de Frederick Jackson Turner, Jackson Frederick Quoted by Walter Prescott Webb, “H Webb, Prescott by Walter Quoted The scholarly application of Turner’s thesis to Eurasia began with works by Owen Yet, the origin of the Frontier thesis is closely associated with the name of Frederick The Frontier in American History ɿ story as H as story 20 Even if all these pillars of Turner's Frontier have 14 ɿ ghAdventure,” (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1921), The Amer The ɿ can H can 19 ɿ stor ɿ cal Rev cal ɿ ew 2 CEU eTD Collection Dominic Lieven, Containment 23 22 Ukrainy frontiers],” comparative of theory [the frontyriv komparatyvnyh “Teoriia Chornovol, Ihor ȱ Frontiercease to to one,be to become a core itself orwhether its destiny to is foreverbe discarded. Second, LeDonne raised an important point – he asked whether it is possible for borderlands is First, on influence the warfare of undeniablepersistent in is twofold. my contribution research and states beyond the Frontier, other empires should never be core areasand frontiers, while writing politicalstate and histories. LeDonneand Dominic Lieven at leastacknowledged differences between thesocieties of frontiersused only as intermediatethe zones between struggling empires. Still,John Scholars ofgeopolitics adoptednotions theof coreareas and its frontier. They, however, Andreas Kappeler, “The Russian Southern and Eastern Frontiers from the 15 edited by N. J.Smelser and P. B. Baltes (New York:Elsevier Science, 2001),9:5812-5818. anywhere west theof Don”. conditions … was far from perfect”, stilleven in 1800 “assimilation“open to the [new] political, social,frontier economic, and psychological upon the steppe … ceased to demarcate theirto borders and bring peace, and order progressthe exist borderlands.to Naturally, Frontier’s closure, when by the start of innomads 19theinternal developmentof Eastern European states,also developing the idea of with frontier the of role the to attention brought McNeil him. quoting not if even ideas, colonists onthe natural environment. the society, studies anddebate of the impact frontieron of the thusstarting tradition and Alfred J. Rieber, “Frontiers in History,” in “Frontiers Rieber, J. Alfred 21 mper John P. LeDonne, William H.McNeill, For the brief overview of Lattimore’s legacy see: legacy Lattimore’s of overview brief the For ɿ o [Regional History of Ukraine] 3 (2009), 41-66. 1 (2003), 47-64. Western Western studies Russian of frontiers were developing intoseveral directions. William McNeil in his “Europe's Steppe Frontier, 1500-1800” followed Turner’s (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997). Empire: The Russian Empire and Its Rivals The Russian Empire and the World 1700-1917. The Geopolitics of Expansion and Europe's Steppe Frontier 22 International encyclopedia ofthe socialand behavioral sciences 21 (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1964), 221. th century bureaucratic empires werefinally able 15 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001). th to the 18 23 The use of their Rehional’na istoriia Rehional’na th Centuries,” Ab- , CEU eTD Collection on the demography the thethe localpopulation.on and identities the demography Asfollows, of of possibility contestedby at leastinto threepowers, complex ecological systems long with effects term environment, persistent warfare and cultural changes transformcould certain frontiers, development and fall of Eurasian the empires. The interplay between naturalthe andsavagery. The advanceand defense of frontierscrucial played role in the creation, process of migration, colonization or deportation; asymbol, line between the civilization meanings of the Frontier –itcan be aborderzone, contested by severalimperial centers; a andcrafted an into elegant theory complex of frontiers.His key ideas are: there are three history. Russian not Polish-Lithuanian, of a part as Cossacks Dnieper viewed Kappeler imperial-barbaric border; national state territorial border; inclusive Frontier border. Frontier inclusive border; territorial state national border; imperial-barbaric cultural frontier wasfurtherinto divided thecategories, developed by Jurgen Osterhammel: militarytwo entities; cultural frontierand religious between different cultural traditions. The between frontier militarized peoples; sedentary and nomads between example, for lifestyles, geographical frontierbetween zones; climaticdifferent frontier social between different refined andexpanded. AndreasKappeler distinguishedbetween fourmeanings ofthis term: 27 26 (Bloomington–Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 2002). 25 http://www.hist.ceu.hu/readers/miller_ma/ledonne.pdf. Barrett wroteThomas theeveryday life history the of population. frontier peoples, center its theneed policies toadopt of tounique frontier circumstances, his works highlightedthe economic andcultural transfers between colonists and indigenous contested by already established powers. 24 Kappeler, “The Russian Southern and Eastern Frontiers from 15 the Frontiers andEastern Southern “The Russian Kappeler, Barrett, Khodarkovsky Michael John P. LeDonne, P. John The main pointsfrom traditions introducedabove were captured by Alfred Rieber The Frontierconceptwas not only toappliedlocal cases, also but theoretically Another tradition focused more on Frontiers themselves. Michael Khodarkovsky in At The Edge OfEmpire. Edge The At Core Area andFrontier in HistoricalPerspective , Russia’s, steppe frontier. The making of a colonial empire,1500-1800 24 16 th to the 18 th , accessed, 04 June 2012. Centuries,” 48-49. 26 25 27 while Still, CEU eTD Collection historiography historiography may probably be by justifiedlike external factors accessibility the of their eastern counterparts ofDon,Volga and Terek. like Uskoks or Hajduks, Uskoks or like similarities between theUkrainian Cossackswestern and militaryborderland communities concept of Frontier. of concept Frontiertheir regions thesis. through the In Russia whole Caucasus inSiberia centers arethe and dedicated to rewriting history of Frontier”. Steppe Europe’s in the Cossacks “The his in frontiers complex used Brekhunenko [the Frontiers of Russia],” Frontiers [the 30 (Moscow: Novoe Literaturnoe Obozrenie, 2012). 29 Miller and Alfred J. Rieber (Budapest: Central European University Press,2004), 177-208. it in their complexof frontier regions.Moldavian scholars Andrey and ViktorKusko Taki appealed to recent “Bessarabia borders. new legitimize additionally inpopulation, new image ofthe acquiredregion for the general imperial society,inand, the a way, Russianaccordance with theimperial structure, but alsoto createnew identity thelocalfor Empire.” from not additional the requires resources empire only bring localin to administration 33 59. frontiers],” of comparative 32 theory [the frontyriv komparatyvnykh “Teoriia Chornovol, Ihor historiography on this problem, see Brekhunenko, Ukrainian the of overview a brief For Thesis. Frontier the use) actively many (while acknowledge 31 dominance in a region,Frontier closureis challengedandeven if achieves one power military and political the Frontier persists as a symbol and a myth. 28 For the overview of recent trends in Russian regional historiographies, see Ihor Chornovol, “Frontyry Rosii “Frontyry Chornovol, Ihor see historiographies, regional Russian in trends recent of overview the For Andrey Kusko and Viktor Taki, Brekhunenko, Lepyavko, least at work this in mentioned and Cossacks the with dealing scholars, Ukrainian contemporary all Almost Alfred J. Rieber, “The Comparative Ecology of Complex Frontiers,” in Frontiers,” Complex of Ecology Comparative “The Rieber, J. Alfred As Ukraine,for contemporary Ukrainian historians almost unanimously use the Post-Soviet historians, dealing with their home regions, readily adopted the concept adopted regions,home readily their with dealing Post-Soviet historians, Velykyi Kordon Ievrop Kordon Velykyi Kozaky na stepovomu kordoni, 31 Krytyka Ironically even recent works Cossackon studies point theout 32 while indicating the differences betweenthe CossacksDniepr and 6(2007),17-21. Bessarabiia v sostave Rossiiskoi Imperii Rossiiskoi vsostave Bessarabiia y. 30 445-455 Kozaky na stepovomu kordoni, 17 . 33 Onthethishand, one shift in 29 Ukrainian researcher Viktor [Bessarabia in the Russian Empire] Russian the in [Bessarabia Imperial rule, 19-24. 28 This persistence This edited by Alexei CEU eTD Collection continental states monarchies as absolute anoversimplification,was however, inhis main parliamentary allcontinental. British and the Indeed, European of absolutistic perception absolutism,position the of state tothe toexposure warfare andexposurewarfare tothe emergence of Hintze outlined two possible ways of development for European states – without haswithout been influencea determining on internal structure.” between nations has far important;been more andthroughout the ages from pressure falsetherefore classto consider conflict as only forcethe in history.driving Conflict pinpoint one andonly discarding allreason, others. of the I although understand thatroots modern state werecomplex and itisimpossible to were always strong, the second approach naturalseems interpretative a my tool for project, this work focuses on a borderlandregion, influences where fromthe foreign state entities sees different pathsof state building as adirect resultof competition between states.Since cooperation)(or between social Thegroups. other accentuates theinter-state conflict and forces of state creation developmentand inside the state,focusing onthe internal struggle Traditionally, there are two main approaches to the problem.One looks for the main moving 19 1.3 The State legitimization, andcreation of new identity for the new state is still open. archives. On the other, the problem of Ukraine's place in the world, its history 34 Europe 35 Eurasia, of States New the and Russia Also see contributions by Alfred J. Rieber, Zenon E.Kohut,and Serhii M.Plokhy to Mark von Hagen, “Does Ukraine Have a History?” Havea Ukraine “Does vonHagen, Mark Quoted byThomas Ertman, th century, generalizing theories of modern European state-building are far from recent. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 11. 1997), Press, University Cambridge York: (New In 1906 German Hintzethat:exaggeratedIn 1906historian argued Otto “Itisone-sided, and The same way as the lineage of the borderland studies can be traced to at least the Birth of Leviathan. Building States and Regimes in Medieval and Early Modern edited by S. Frederick Starr (New York, 1994). York, (New Starr Frederick by S. edited Slavic Review Slavic 18 3(1995):54, 658-673. 35 Linking geographical Linking The Legacy of History in 34 CEU eTD Collection were rather weak. an extreme coercion-intensive case of path, wherethe state clearly anddominated cities research,the traditionalindirect rule was replaced by direct rule. Consequently, theextraction hadapparatus to grow and, what is especially important my for their activities).As war became larger and moreexpensive,the state neededmore resources. specialization into states which (in new expanded kinds activitiesof bureaucratized and which states mobilized their national populations and their own fiscal apparatuses), and mercenaries capitalists),for arranged finances nationalization independent (in through and through fourphases patrimonialism, of brokerage organization: contracted states (in which nationthe of statevictory the wasand farsystem from certaininternational the before within theposition and 20 war, for preparation were many possible combinations between concentratedcapital, concentrated coercion, development, as many types stateof the from history European show, were different. There state further of the paths Yet, rivals. internal attacking and for policing, tax extraction, used coercive warfare means for ledto state-creation, since coercivethese also means be could rural lords possessed coercion –weapons and skilledmen them.to use The concentration of interplay between capital.coercion and Capital primarily was concentrated incities,while importance war of pressure,but also linkedeconomic it to factors, creating a model of deepened the understanding of the ofwarfarerole instate building. accepted Tilly the was concept later developed and refined. point, the effect of warfare on state building and internal policies, he was sound and this 36 38 37 Tilly, Ibid, 60. Ibid, 53. Ibid, Coercion, Capital and European States The same way Tilly’sas model can be perceivedas a refined version of Hintze’s Later works by Charles Tilly, Michael Mann, Brian Downing, and Thomas Ertman 38 , 14,31-32. 19 th century. 36 Tilly suggests that states moved states that suggests Tilly 37 Russiain Tilly’s is model CEU eTD Collection importance of external powers is acknowledgedby scholarsthe coming from allthree between thePoland, Crimean Khanate, and later – Russia. typical military frontier Muslims.nomads; andbetween Orthodox It wasa Catholics, the Frontier.It aborder between was andsteppe forest-steppe; between farming and the New Russia region? The Pontic plain possessed the traits of all four Kapeller’s types of warfare. development theof state into one anotheror direction was geopolitical competition and constitutionalisms. bureaucratic and patrimonial absolutisms, bureaucratic and patrimonial combinations: andgotfour infrastructure of state thefactor added scheme, absolutism-constitutionalism foreign subsidies, although staying faithful to Tilly’s andMann’s premises. intoequation alternative ofresources sources – income from the conqueredlands and if major state revenues were coming coercion.from case of primarily trade taxation, thestatenot need did excessive bureaucracy, required it but easier states for than extraction of fromresources the dispersedpopulation. rural Thus,in state infrastructureargument. Mannalsolinkedthe resources theextraction toof and state infrastructure the to the politicalconcept, regime. the Following works Mann,of Mann taxation and of Downingcities was muchcan be assessed as an evolution of Tilly’s 41 Early Modern Europe 40 (Cambidge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), 1: 456-479. 39 Thomas Ertman, Brian Downing, Mann, Michael Whowere the actors here? Naturally, competing the states thethemselves – Can above-mentioned the theoretical approachesbroughtbe together applied and to The scheme was made more complex The scheme more the was made by basic Ertman,took Thomas who Birth of the Leviathan, The Military Revolution and Political Change: Origins of Democracy and Autocracy in The Sources ofSocial Power: AHistory Powerof from the Beginning toAD 1760 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992), 9. 41 Still, even in his concept the main factor which influenced the Still,even the inhis factor whichinfluenced main concept 10-35. *** 20 39 Downing expanded this model adding model this expanded Downing 40 CEU eTD Collection on these categories as on continuum. on as categories these on competition. Yet, I wouldnot accept coercion and capital as strict dichotomy,will but look extraction was theemployed, morechances the state hadto survive interimperial to itsextract efficient survive.in order resources regionsfrom Themore of mechanism conquests. in stability itsfurther internal in justifying tradition and Frontierboth maintaining to migrate to other contested frontiers,to adopt its policies towards the borderland population, because the population still onwas able the other, the stateand, actually,was able did notto close, fully but shifted.exploit On the onethe hand,fully accept Rieber’sCossack notion of complex frontierregions, whichexistedas ecological system tradition forced the state imperial history imperialand space, sothe Frontier as mythology persisted aswell.Here I toexist, continued process thetointegratedinto and tradition localFrontier be thehad linear boundaries, the recently regionconquered be colonized,had to thus the asFrontier a really closed? Even with the further advance ofborders and the development of modern policies to better manage the borderland population.However, I wonder, was the Frontier Khodarkovsky on the role, which local population played andthat the state had toadapt its and abolitionin a period, when Russia was dominant over the Pontic region. of borderlandresult in my study I will not be able to discard the Ottomans, Poland,Lattimor’s culturalzone ofcontact and exchange replaced Turner’s open as space,a and western powers evencommunities?mentioned traditions –state-building studies, Frontier studies, and geopolitics.Indeed, Yes, I tend to agree with McNeil and I accept Tilly’s notion, that in general Eastern wasEurope a coercion-intensive As for state-building perspective, Iagree with Tilly in generalthe – state needed to Were the Cossacks aswell, anactor especially in the period ofthe Frontier’s closure 21 CEU eTD Collection development the trade. eitherof Thus, the Cossacks hadtobe resettled. reorganizedor region and ofthe stabilization be anassetin the not would in internal intentions,provinces the existence of large number of previous irregulars, armed people with questionable Southern theatres warfare of transformed theformer Frontiers into internal provinces.Still, Solov' region. Consequently, Cossack hadstatus to be revised. the state perspective, thesamenot allow efficient privileges extractiondid the resource from middle- and high-ranking Cossacks to gradually transform into merchants.However, from capital-intensive Paradoxically, one. grantedallowthe privileges initially to could warriors loans and credits. It is viable to assume that the region could possibly transform into a Cossack officers steadily enrichedthemselves, Cossack society became withtied numerous their own economy. By the end of 18 of end the By economy. own their persistent Frontier warfare,nor trainedas regulartroops. counter-raids, the quality of this dropped.resource Cossacks wereneither hardenedin the stabilization of the Onborders the one hand, in the the Frontier late warriors18 were even if dispersed, but coercion resource. With shown by by shown Tilly a state following course. as capital-intensive cities werenot theknights Maltese only capital-intensive are looting rotes powers. trade capital could be possible not only through trade, but, for instance, also through piracy. So, region, where cities were weak. 42 43 Tilly, Ibid.,57. ɟ Coercion, Capital and European States v Mann,and by thelast quarter theof 18 Taking into account notions of infrastructure, which were present in the works of works in the present were which infrastructure, of notions account into Taking On the other hand, using the traditional rights andfreedoms, Cossacks developed From this perspective, the Zaporozhian region ratherprovides atypical aswell. case 42 Yet, Tilly himself acknowledges, that the accumulation of th , 60. , century Zaporizhia became grain-exporting region, grain-exporting became Zaporizhia century 22 th century andnomadic decrease in raids and th century advancement on both Western and Western both on advancement century 43 CEU eTD Collection http://www.cossackdom.com/articles/m/malenko_pivdenkozak.htm. minor concessionsminor the to provinces. continuous warfare distractedthe state from thisforced goal, the state tonegotiate and make lack but fearresources, of local of imperial structure, intorevolts, region theunified Ukrainian narrative imperial is: the general furtherplan to centralize,was toincorporate the the Caucasus region, where they could still be useful. Cossacks underwent several reorganisations. in Later, they1790s-1820s, were resettled to the in these First, the measures. both Russian Empire 1770s-1780s Actually,undertook the in the last quarter of the 18 of the quarter last the in chverti XVIII-XIX stolit’ 44 recently recently conquered region as well as further conquests. the existing frontier mythology not only to pacify the local population, butalsoto legitimate with unified be to had claims Imperial one. loyal new, establish to and tradition treacherous needed ascheapirregulars, yet their reorganization hadweaken to link the with previous Cossack hosts was needed to forge new local identity; in regionmilitary were not purely concessionary, but termsintentional. The dissolutionCossacks of the existing were still Liudmyla Malenko, Liudmyla The classical interpretation of the borderland military The in ofthe interpretation reorganization theclassical military borderland Pivdennoukrains’ke kozatstvo v politychnykh planakh Rosiis’koi Imperii v ostannii [The cossackdom of the southern Ukraine the in political plans ofthe Russian Empire th -19 th centuries], accessed June 04, 2012. 44 My working hypothesis is: imperial policies in the in policies imperial is: hypothesis working My 23 CEU eTD Collection x x x chapterI will: in this Therefore, regions. neighboring its and Zaporizhia both towards policies imperial difficult to isolate the 1775 events and cossackdom of the HetmanateSlobodian and was forgotten.regions study quickly Still it is rather them without paying attention to the previous Mykhailo Drahomanov, Mykhailo Dumka, 1992), 430. 45 “ either “registered” servants of the crown (bethis crown Polish or Russian)militarized or imperial army. imperial almostnone theintegrationabout Hetmanateof the andSlobodian regimentsinto the Drahomanov noticed that there were lots of folk songs on the dissolution of the Sich, while (Geneva, 1881), 17-20. pokozachenni Mykhailo Hrushevskyi, Mykhailo the Pontic region in their reformedstatus. move directly to the main part of my thesis actual Zaporizhia– the dissolution was distorted and mythologized by thereemergence national narrative; of the Cossack hosts of point what happened out actually in summer 1775, considering thethat theimage of general the treatmentand the of hosts in particular; Great,as wars of the 18 briefly outline the trends in the Empire–Cossacks relations from the reign of Peter the Collectors of folklore (as well as creators of the Ukrainian identity)Hrushevsky and ” peasants. The myth of the Sich proved to be extremely resilient, while the 45 Chapter 2: Dissolution and Early Attempts of Integration Indeed, it is much easier toromanticizegenuine frontier warriors than Novi ukrains’ki pisni pro gromads’ki spravy Ilustrovana istoriia Ukrainy th century century greatly influenced Russian domestic policies in 24 [the illustrated history of Ukraine] (Kyiv: Naukova [new Ukrainian songs on civil affairs] on civil songs Ukrainian [new CEU eTD Collection devaluation of the Cossack force leda to reconsideration of the imperial regional policy, irregulars depended on the Cossack “traditional rights and freedoms”. Second, the frontier thesupply First, of wasbi-directional. process prophecy, sincefulfilling the forcingre-evaluate to Peter the of semi-privilegedrole “serving people”.It was a self- itsconsequently forces at Narvain which easily to theRussian superiority 1700, proved 47 2004), 28. (1682-1718). Sweden of XII Charles monarch in interestedthe the link of strengthening the itsbetween dynasty and clients. loyalties Frontierof warlords were rather fluid,therefore the empire was extremely Cossack societies, which pledged allegianceRussia to half a century before. However,the Conversely, what Russia could lose? The first line of the Russian defense was client failedas well. the Great (1682-1725) coalition,Peter inspired by Anti-Ottoman European of of the Ottoman influencean –act forwhich Russia was not ready. was practically impossible and the only changeway to the situation was toforce Crimea out the nomads and the settlers. was toachieve),possible had while South the centuries-old a unsteady stalemate between different but connectedin – the Westpowerscompetedfor hegemony this (thus, hegemony Russia was challenged I framework answerswill start looking in for internationalIt situation.the wasa time, when both in the West and instarted atthe beginning of the 18 the South. These two theatres were quite2.1 The story so far (1700-1764) 46 Downing, JohnLeDonne, P. What wassituation in the the West? Russia facednot just absolute, an but a popular WhatRussia could achieve in the region? DemarcationPontic steppesof the open Active of the policies Cossacks integration intothe imperial administration army and The Military Revolution and Political Change The Grand Strategy of the Russian Empire 1650-1831 th century.Why? selected Following theoreticalthe 25 47 , 11. Charlespossesseda drilled army, regular (Oxford: Oxford University (Oxford:Press, OxfordUniversity 46 The project of the of project The CEU eTD Collection such policies varied from region to region. at the same time undermining their power.The general intention was clear,yet the pace of to alienate the elites of the whole regions, but to incorporatedemonstrated, them centralizationinto the imperial policies hadproject, to be undertaken subtly and gradually, in ordersacrificeit. not As the deflection Hetman of Mazepa and AtamanHordienkoto the Swedes competition. to surviveinter-imperial state monopolization coerciveof means,had undertakenbe to in fortheorder Russian State effective extraction ofthe resources from theprovinces. The centralization, asaform the of resort to outdated means – indirect rulewhich in turn were shaping state capability for prolongedwarfare. and traditional all-imperialregion for purposes.Oncedomestic military again, shaped policies, demands autonomies – andthe organize Cossack more militarywillingness (the tyrantprowess does not care for his subjects) led toobligations serve.both underminedCossack ability sustain(irregulars hadto themselves) and to Consequently, new the formswaning of increased Third, rights. old their of ofrevocation and obligations subjects’ of increase military resource extraction from the 48 the socialstructure of the Russian Empire in the 18th century] (Kharkiv, 2007). ukrains’koho kozatstva dosotsial’noistrucktury Rosiis’koi Imperii 1989). For specifics of the similar process in the Slobodian region, see Vladyslav Yatsenko Imperial Absorption of the Hetmanate, 1760s-1830s became atesting groundfor reforms in other Cossack units as well. their transformations reorganizations and the were herefastest and granted by not Tsarandthe the were result treatiespacts, of negotiations. or Consequently, mentionednot have autonomy earlier, collective did they all their and were privileges For the integration of the Hetmanate, see Zenon E. Kohut, E. Zenon see Hetmanate, of the integration Forthe In localcontrast, notables anddidnotwishsome degreestill held of power to in conflict) to the involved Russia (already for possible it was thatI am uncertain Integrational policy was the easiest for the center in the Slobodian regiments. As I 48 26 (Ukrainian Research Institute of Harvard University, ofHarvard Institute Research (Ukrainian Russian Centralism and Ukrainian Autonomy: [the [the integrationof Ukrainian Cossacks into Slobozhanshchyna , Integratsiia, CEU eTD Collection still loyal unitsfurther integrationist andcontinued more attempts carefully. in Nevertheless, antagonize decided notto but military, Hetmanate's of majority over the control maintain attempts to revise the The rights of theRussian government Hetmanate. managedto supportedMazepa, joined by some officers,the Swedes his in rebellion against Peter's conflict between thetheTsar and Cossacks culminatedin when 1708-1709, Hetman pace of the reforms. Yet, Leftrights granted tothe Slodobian Cossacks. Thus,the main difference herewas the slower Bank elites opposed evenTheseprivilegeshadrightsa contractual nature thus couldnot and as revoked be easily as such moderate measures and the 50 18 the of between the Hetmanate and Russia during the second half of of thethe 17 Left Bank Ukraine and the status However,the the similar intheSlobodian transformations to autonomous regiments. rights of the Cossacks here were codified in the treaties different construction projects. peasants, forbidding the resettlement ofCossacks theirand families usingand them at the and Cossacks the between differences the decrease to strove government the Next, region. in the courts Russian the of introduction with the limited were sphere civilian the in administration Cossack the of rights the and Slobozhanshchyna, in situated units 49 Russian military command. Russian military regions were included into the Ukrainian division, which was subordinated directly to the Tsar ratherall elected. than In1706 theregiments from Slobozhanshchyna Hetmanate and could hold the rank In 1700 the reelection tillof the Cossack colonels was forbidden and,once elected, a person death. Officers were more and more frequently appointed by the Yatsenko, Olena Apanovych, Olena th As for the imperial politics towards imperial As forthethe integration politics Hetmanate,towards werethe of they At the start of 18 century] (Kyiv, 1969), 68. Integratsiia ukrains’koho kozatstva Zbroini syly Ukrainy pershoi polovyny XVIII st. th century Cossacks had to adopt the Russian military organization. military theRussian to adopt had Cossacks century 49 Since 1709Cossacks were supplyobligedto the Russian army , 18. 27 [Ukrainian armed forces of the first half first ofthe forces armed [Ukrainian th – early 18 th centuries. 50 CEU eTD Collection risk of losing advantages when a neighbor builds hisup means.” “[c]oersion is always relative; anyone whocontrols concentrated means ofcoercion runs the actually had until 1734. the fluidity of theirmentality,accepted resettled andaprotectorate of Crimea, which they Host's center, andtheexpulsion oftheCossacks.The Zaporozhians, one moretime showing deflection in 1708. Finally, in Therefore, Cossacks1709 readily participated in Bulavin'sthe revolt of 1707-1708 andinempire Mazepa’s resorted to theand the use of Cossacksdestruction as construction workforce all– combined to alienate the Zaporizhia. of the Sich, the limit thepolitical activity of the region, further regulation oftheCossack military service, to borderlands,attempts the autonomous the incorporating Peter's policy earlier.of started distant with region most the questionable loyalties, active toincrease attempts state control Novosergievskaia area. For example, from 1680to the beginning of the 18th century, Russia constructedthe construction fortressesof with Russian garrisons, tightening governmental control over the the supported officials the Tsar's area, influence inthe expandto its order minimal. In 52 region. By the end of 17 subordinated to the fiscal in subordinated officials judicial imperial spheres. the administrative,and additional control was justified. Later, in 1722-1725, the Hetmanate was gradually acceleratedthe integration of the Hetmanate, whose loyalties were now questionedand any local opposition In struggling against the Tsar. perspective, gambleMazepa's only thelong run, thehands of the center werefreethe claim – ofbetrayal used could be against 51 Tilly, Yatsenko, Coercion, Capital and European States Thus, the catalystThus, thewas a of war. AsTilly Cossack transformations noted, Even slower were the governmental reforms in the almost independent almost the in reforms governmental the were slower Even Integratsiia ukrains’koho kozatstva , Novobogoroditskaia th century the political ties between the Host and the dynasty were , 71. , and , 20. 28 Kamenozatonskaia 52 fortresses. In the 17 th 51 century Russia In the most In the Zaporizhia CEU eTD Collection Apanovych, undertaken in the Hetmanate region. Hetmanate the in undertaken Cossack regiments increased once more. Similar steps in theintegration process were also closely controlledimperial by officials. The number of regular dragoon companies in more became administration regional the Slobodian (1730-1740) Ivanovna Anna of reign field exercises as well asofficials surveyedthe economic socialand situation in Slobozhanshchyna,regular regularsummer companies were Slobodian and Hetmanateintroduced regiments became subordinatedto the War Collegium,imperial to the regiments. During the the course, started by Peter I. attention was Weakeneddiverted. by power-struggle successors werenot ready completeto capital crucialwas more than the situation in borderlandsthe andfora time the court's monarchy, while the order of succession was extremely uncertain. Thesituation in the were courses uncertain,thehighest nobility for withstruggledpower the absolute the country were completely in exhausted wars,the theinternal externaland strategic makepossibility thisto shift. easily change. Even themore, Pontic region was still contested andthere was a real of the Cossack troops.rivals of Russia.In the 18 Second, incorrespondedtothe forces which they andtheseprovided forces matchedforces the of the case of conflict,reached an understanding withthe Cossackelites, since the price of their cooperation loyalties of Frontier rulers could 53 State than the Northern sothere War, was noneedfor radical shifts in the domestic policies. Yatsenko, After Peter's death, Russia enteredan era ofconstantpalace the resources coups – of The War of the Polish Succession 1733-1738 was less of a challenge for the Russian Still, during the reigns of Catherine I (1725-1727) and Peter II(1727-1730) Peter and I (1725-1727) Catherine of reigns the during Still, Integratsiia ukrains’koho kozatstva Zbroini syly Ukrainy, 74. th century the power Russian of rivals grewbeyondthe capabilities 53 , 18-21. 29 CEU eTD Collection Ukrainiancossackdom] edited by Valerii Smolii (Kyiv,2009), 1:587-604. Zaporozhian Host under the Crimean protectorate],” in protectorate],” Crimean the under Host Zaporozhian [the protektsiieiu kryms’koiu pid Nyzove Zaporoz’ke “Viis’ko Mil’chev, Volodymyr see issue, this Crimea, Russian side was interested the in weakeningand of the enemy Russia between before the tensions war of growing 1735-1739. of a moment was it ForSince more on sides. changed they violated, were rights 56 centralization: it coincidedwith the Seven Years’War of 1756-1763. Once again, the pace lands andsome were ready to protect their colonies with weapons. integration almostimpossible. Cossack elitestheir started owncolonization Newof Russian supported statecolonies. This causedthe Cossacks’ resentment madeand peaceful were not successful. The CossacksLand trade.Attempts theof Zaporozhiansdefend their to via rights official complains Commission of 1756-1760Empress colonizebegan to theZaporizhia region introducedand restrictions theon ignored claims of the Host and fostera peaceful reorganization of the Host. by purchasing support the of the Cossack officers with advantages.material The aim was to Petersburg exploited the social conflicts between poorandrich Cossacks, sharpenedthem offending the Cossacks and violating their “traditional rights and freedoms”. Still, St. 55 Mohylians'ka Akademiia, 2009). [The rust on the blade:Left-Bank cossackdom and Russian-Turkish War 1735-1739] (Kyiv:Kyievo- to 1734, returned to the Russian protection. the Russian to returned 1734, to stilldecreased, the role of imperial officials remainedintact. concessions the Cossackto regions: companiesregular were taxesdissolved, were population in the Hetmanate Yet, the warwith the Ottomans in increased 1735-1739 the impoverishment of the years. Naturally, this led to impoverishment of the Cossacks and their fighting capabilities suffered. More on Repan, More see Oleh issue, this suffered. capabilities fighting their and Cossacks of the impoverishment to led this Naturally, years. 54 As shifting loyalties were a norm in theFrontier region, moment the Cossacks feltthat their traditional Yatsenko, Since this war took place in the Southern theatre, Cossacks had to supply fighting Russian army for five for army Russian fighting supply to had Cossacks theatre, Southern the in place wartook this Since Yet, this intensification Yet, this step in not just teleological intensification trajectory was to abstract a a policy. The intensified itsintegrationist government the the Russian From 1750s In 1734 the Zaporozhians, expelled by Peter I in 1709 and serving the Crimean Khan Crimean the and serving 1709 I in by Peter expelled Zaporozhians, the 1734 In Integratsiia ukrains’koho kozatstva Irzha na lezi: livoberezhne kozatstvo i Rosiis’ko-Turets’ka viina 1735-1739 rr 54 and the governmentof Elizabeth (1742-1762) required some , 19. 56 30 For a time government made efforts to avoid Istoriia ukrains’koho kozatstva 55 [The history of the . CEU eTD Collection 14353, 20:190-193. ( Cossacks Zaporozhian the of name very the regarding “extermination” and Sich regarding Zakonov RossiiskoiImperii in province],” NewRussian the to it attaching and Sich Zaporozhian the of destruction the 59 the manifest3 August of 1775, thethe Empress wordsused “destructed” ( of theits the lands and redistributed andof NewRussian Host between Azov provinces. to thedissolution the resorted the government imperial protection, of CrimeaOttoman out transferred tothe regular army. Common Cossacks were forcedto become state peasants, while Cossack officers were Hetmanate was abolishedand ayearlater a new Slobodsko-Ukrainian province was created. the 1764 In borderlands. contested than rather provinces internal almost considered be stalematemoving and further.the border The Left andSlobodian Bank already areas could ofreversing century-old capable the certainly towars, led) lead Ottomans (and could military and administrative structure.hand, quite hada lot already been integrate todone the Cossack intotheregions imperial On the other hand, the weakening of Poland and the 2.2Abolished, Disbanded, and Destructed (1764-1775) 58 resources and the short campaign against Sweden in Southern theatres,1741-1743 increasedduring external challenges. The of theWar Polish Succession did not place great and Western strainbetween region an intermediate lands, Cossack in the integration on regional of Russian 57 so istrebleniem … isamogo nazvaniiazaporozhskih kozakov “Manifest. Ob unichtozhenii Zaporozhskoi sechi i prichislenii onoi k Novorossiiskoi gubernii [Manifest. On [Manifest. gubernii k Novorossiiskoi onoi prichislenii i sechi Zaporozhskoi unichtozhenii Ob “Manifest. Yatsenko, LeDonne, The tropes ofthe varied greatlyin different ofthe dissolution The tropes contexts. In Zaporizhia The situation changed during the reign of CatherineII (1762-1796). On the one 57 The Russian Empire Russian The Integratsiia ukrains’koho kozatstva thus require not areadjustmentdid ofthe domestic policies. [Complete Collected Laws of the Russian Empire] Russian ofthe Laws Collected [Complete , 30-37. 58 In June 1775, after the first partition of Poland and forcing , 22. 31 ). 59 In the Ukrainian narrative Ukrainian In the , 1 st series, 3 August 1775,no. Polnoe Sobranie razrushena ) CEU eTD Collection centralizing empire, which nottolerate could any autonomies restrictand hadit to them,or interpretations. Eitherit was the only natural, historiography andproduced such hot debates. Still, there are two possible extreme actual violence devastation. and LeDonne –“Cossacks … were disbanded” 67 66 and G.E.Rothenberg (New York: Colorado University Press, 1979), 1:395. 65 undeniable. is children of contemporary shaping identity and myths of national inretranslation role its source, a verified as Wikipedia consider not do scholars if Even literature. 64 of evil. asempire ofRussia description picturesque and discources organization, its dissolution. its organization, following the original source and implying symbolical destruction, destruction of myth, even if their authorshipis hardtotrace. only fortress fortifications.to Wordings like to theground”“razed also appear,enforce the that thewholefortifications,the settlement, except others razed; was end of 18 naprykintsi XVIII – upershiy polovyni XIX st.[Ukrainian Lands underthe rule of Russianthe Empire in the actual demolition – still few people know, what exactly was destroyed. Someauthors 63 http://history.franko.lviv.ua/yak_r6-1.htm. 2012. June 04 accessed 2006), conscious authors alsoconscious authors epithets add like“treacherous”. st. autonomy the in Ukraine and Russian rule],” in 62 unknown Ataman of the Black Sea Host],” 61 the beginning of the 20 or the Last Zaporozhian Host] (Odessa: 1846), 3:205. The critical approach to this problem may be traced to Skal’kovskii, Apollon contemporary Ukrainian works, mentioned in this chapter. Ingeneral, themyth of Sich destruction ascends to zaporozhskih kozakov the ( “destruction” 60 LeDonne, Rieber, Philip Longworth “Transformations in cossackdom 1650-1850,” in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaporizhian_Sich,accessed 04 June 2012 with, naturally, no further link to the Mytsyk and Bazhan, Nataliia Iakovenko, “Zgasannia kozats’kyh avtonomii u pidrossiis’kii Ukraini [the waning of the Cossack ofthe waning [the Ukraini pidrossiis’kii u avtonomii kozats’kyh “Zgasannia Iakovenko, Nataliia – Suhyna [Ivan viis’ka chornomors’koho otaman koshovyi – nevidomyi Suhyna “Ivan Sapozhnykov, Ihor It may be already found in the classical works of works of 19 classical the in found Itmay be already [essay on the history of Ukraine since the ancient times till the end of the 18 In general, there are few events, which had such strong impact on Ukrainian national Ukrainian on impact strong such had which few events, are there general, In In the West “destroyed” is also used, for instance by Philip Longworth, presumably th Ecology of Complex Frontiers Complex of Ecology – first half of the 19 Grand Strategy [the history of the Zaporozhian Cossacks] (Saint Petersburg,1897) and persists in all Istoriia Novoi Sichi abo ostann’oho Kosha Zaporoz’koho th century in the sources publications of the state official documents by Vasilii Bednov. by Vasilii documents official state of the publications sources the in century znyshchennia Istoriia Ukrainy , 121. , th century]” for perfect mix of romantic, Marxist, nationalist, and postcolonial and nationalist, Marxist, of romantic, mix perfect for century]” 65 Alternatively, Alfred Rieber used “abolition” used Rieber Alfred Alternatively, , 187. , . See chapter “Ukrains'ki Zemli pid vladoiu Rosiis'koi Imperii Rosiis'koi vladoiu pid Zemli “Ukrains'ki See chapter . Pivdenna Ukraina or zruinuvannia Narys istorii Ukrainy z naidavnishykh chasiv do kintsia XVIII 67 32 64 th predetermined , which both have fewer connotations with century. For example, Dmytro Iavornyts’kyi, Dmytro example, For century. [The Southern Ukraine] 5 (2000), 259. ) persists 61 Textbooks go further and talk about War and Society outcome for a more and more 60 , while nationally, more [The History of the New Sich New the of History [The th 63 century] (Kyiv: Krytyka, (Kyiv: century] limit the destruction limit the , edited by B. K. Kiraly 66 and John and 62 Istoriia insist CEU eTD Collection hunt and fish, produce some theof mobilization was completely uncompetitive since Cossacks had towork in craftsthe field, in order to sustainnotcould afford arequired minimum of a blade, a gun,horses and two each.Next, the speed themselves. Also, thesupply military skill,during state supply,long problem ofsubordination the sharpens and doublehierarchy Self-appears. expeditionsirregulars was eitheralso had a to problemresortfielded armies of the late 18 to traditional in a situation pillage,numerous. Irregular or troops,be supplied being whenthe vestige of theby Frontiermanythe warfare,state. couldCossacks not In match case large of Revolution 69 cossackdom in Transformations Longworth, also see region, grain-exporting to grain-importing from transformation On Zaporizhia morebecame complex expensive.more and imperial estate structure, technological organizational and development ofwarfare, which polarization a previouslyof egalitarian Cossack estate in toeasierorder it absorb into factors –stabilization of the southern borderland, governmental policies, aimed atsocial was the was 68 simply hire mercenaries insteadofserving themselves). time long of military expeditions), powerful landowners (higher command, who could farmers or merchants of war(middle-rank, into peasants (common Cossacks, who could not always afford weapon and a whohorse), did not like the idea of even ifleaving in a reformed status. property for decision endtheto Zaporozhianthe in Host andrecreate 1775 Cossackto units soon thereafter arguments for the problem why was the Sich lifestyle. Below, theirI themdeprive traditional of Cossackswill main and provide dissolved, searching for the roots of both the For the general impact of military development on both state and society see Downing, society and state onboth development military of impact general the For Apanovych, First, formerly frontier warriors were gradually transforming themselves from men random . Zbroini Syly, Zbroini act violence,of while there were completely no reasons to suppress the 100 , 396-397., . th century with their developed logistics systems. Consequently, systems. logistics developed their with century 33 69 In the Cossacks’ case problems were 68 This was the result of many The Military CEU eTD Collection stability of the Russian State? Possibly,yes. During the Danubian expeditions of 1771-1774 Svitlana Kaiuk, [Proceedings of ULN] (Kyiv, 1927), 26:65. [zaporozhian revolts of 1771-1774 and the beginnings of the Transdanubian Host],” in 72 1965), 1:136. http://www.ukrterra.com.ua/developments/history/cossacks/kajuk_kalnysh.htm. Zaporozhian Sich and the destiny of Kalnyshevskii],P. accessed June 04, 2012. treasury, and fleeing andtreasury, to theOttomans. fleeing officers in a program1768 toadvance was electing new leadership,seizing horses, artillery, leadershipflightand Crimea. to among the Cossackspoorest aboutthe revolt against officers, forcedelection ofnew host Frontier region towardsrevolt exodus. Already and there in 1760s the active were rumors theempire. of provinces internal in the communities Müller. There was neither purpose, nor place for disobedient borderland military necessary can be foundimperial officials. The idea that Cossacks already frontieras warriors in Ukraine werenolonger in the 1760s the of the freedoms traditional for Cossacks,separatism while for thea movetoward in the works of imperial 18 mid ideologist Gerharddirectly revolt against the empire, still there were manyalcohol acts of “everyday resistance” brewing, in the borderland protection, they were very eager topreserve landtheir rights (personal freedom, owning, weapon bearing amongCossacks lackedthe constant training and fieldexercises regular armies had. them). They while acquiredFrontier, of waningtraditionally raids by withthestabilization was Frontier lacked the power to in Nataliia Polons’ka-Vasylenko, “Zruinuvannia Zaporoz’koi Sichi [The destructionof the Zaporozhian Sich],” Sich or the Last ZaporozhianHost] (Dniprotetrovsk, Sich: 1994), 571. 71 50-56. 1-36, 1846), (Moscow, Russians], Little and Russia Little about 70 Oleksandr Riabinin-Skliarevs’kyi, “Zaporiz’kibunty 1771-1774 r. ipochatok Zadunais’koho Kosha Apollon Skal’kovskii, Apollon Müller, Friedrich Gerhard Zaporizhzhia XVIII stolittia taioho spadshchyna th Third, speaking of everyday resistance, spread of rumors took specific turn in the Second, despite the fact, that many wereCossackslonger no fit willing or for century. Petty robbery of the governmental colonists in the region was protection Znyshchennia Zaporiz’koi Sichi idolia P. Kalnyshevs’koho Istoriia Novoi Sichi abo ostann’oho Kosha Zaporoz’koho Istoricheskie sochineniia o Malorossii imalorossiianakh 71 During the revolt of the common Cossacks against 72 Were such plans real and anactual threat tothe [Zaporizhia of the 18 34 70 th century and its legacy] (Munich, [The destruction of the destruction [The [The History of the New Naukovyi Zbirnyk ULN Zbirnyk Naukovyi [the historical works historical [the CEU eTD Collection after the after the pacification of the rebellions, the statewasinterestedover control incloser demandedquick decisive and actions required and imperial to resources pacify. Naturally, Hetmanate, insurrections of Iaik Cossacks, Bashkirs, Kalmyks, Pugachev’s revolt – they all the 18 the reorganization of Zaporozhia. summarize, a number of geopolitical, military, social, economic reasons coincided to force Consequently, Cossacks had to be either resettled to new borderlands orenserfed. To of protection interestsnobility the land-owning greaterfor the importanceassumed state. forge anew loyal identity. internal region. Thisledto further measures both tofacilitate resource extraction and to between the Russians andthe Ottomans turned Zaporizhia aborderland, from intoan intervene andone hand,punish it weakened the Cossacks themselves rebels. by giving the againstempire Cossack officers or Russian officialsa reasonable during 1750s-1760s were numerous. On the Onclaim to the other could easily a become catalyst for socialdiscontent also in Hetmanate. Smaller revolts hand, the treaty of Kuchuk Kainarji in 1774 of to places, beyond bureaucracy’s graspand preserve their traditional lifestyle. Cossacks andthosenot likedid who expansion Russian of bureaucracy easilycould resettle Ottoman lands. almost a quarter of participating Cossacks decided not to return to Sich and to stay in the Riabinin-Skliarevs’kyi, 73 Riabinin-Skliarevs’kyi provides figure of 227 who decidedto stay out of total 1015 expedition participants. Koliyivshchyna th On the other hand, were there reasons not to dissolve the Host? In the last quarter of Fourth, Zaporizhia continued to be volatile: some Cossacks participated in the revolt Fifth, while Cossack land hadalways been a beacon forrunaway peasants, the century Russia faced much trouble over borderlands.Uprisings of peasants in 73 Frontier mindsettraditionswere and stillalive among rank-and-file in Poland 1768-1769 and in Pugachev’s revolt 1773-1775. Zaporozhians 1773-1775. revolt in Pugachev’s and 1768-1769 in Poland Zaporiz’ki Bunty , 82. 35 CEU eTD Collection day day theof Host dissolution, we have two main sources. One is a report from a participant, Potemkin. and Rumiantsev starshyna, Consequently, Potemkin proposed a military Kalnyshevskii Ataman summoned operation to dissolve Zaporizhia andleaders’ intentions toresettle Hosttothe tothe Ottoman lands.immediately The court arrest Rumiantsev, General-governor Littleof Russia, senta relation to Petersburg on Zaporozhian liquidated. Don to bring its affairs closer to the all-imperial laws. Yet, on thealso authority in established was New civil activePugachev’s revolt. participation only the Zaporozhian Host was Ural Cossacks, revoked of their autonomies,borderlands in order to prevent stillfuture uprisings. Iaik Cossacks werenot suppressed, renamed completely as disbanded even after their 74 Potemkin postponed it till the suppression of Pugachev’s revolt. Potemkin was issued 21 July 1774, so there is an assumption in historiography, that The initial rescript on the possible liquidation of the Host by absolute loyalty return for the dynasty.to Catherine II to Fieldmarshal empire’s own terms, which meant grantingthat the statelands perceived an opportunity resettleto theand Cossacks otherto frontiersrights onthe to the Cossacks by the ZaporizhiaTsar regionto transformplanned into them peasants. and interpretation Another is in cossackdom] edited by Valerii Smolii (Kyiv, 2009), 1:615. 75 Zaporozhian HostZaporozhian underTsar’s scepter],” in 76 Longworth, Ol’ga Eliseeva, Ol’ga Volodymyr Mil’chev, “Povernennia Viis’ka Zaporiz’koho pid Tsars’kyi Skipetr [The Return of the Return [The Skipetr Tsars’kyi pid Zaporiz’koho Viis’ka “Povernennia Mil’chev, Volodymyr However, the events of 1775–1776were surprisingly peaceful. On the 4June 1775, Let us turn to the turnto itself insearch for state act Let other possibledissolution of us motives. One possible interpretation is that the empire no longer needed the Cossacks of the 74 preventing its escape. Transformations in cossackdom Grigorii Potemkin (Moscow: Molodaia gvardiia, 2005), 165. 2005), gvardiia, Molodaia (Moscow: 76 to theto yet capital, for unknown reasons he did notarrive. So, the creators of the Host suppression plan were , 394-396. Istoriia Ukrains’koho Kozatstva 36 75 Next, in April 1775 Petr Next, 1775 inApril [The history of the Ukrainian CEU eTD Collection practice ofborderlandmanagement for empires. On the other,could these three officers be a yieldedandofficers peacefully. On hand,the decapitationone local of elitesthe isa usual committed. recounting yetthem, not did specify kind what of crimes the former Ataman had named Kalnyshevskii’s crimes Kalnyshevskii,Holovatyi, wereexiledHloba totooyear later and monasteries. A Potemkin horrific to offend the mercifulempire. There wasnobloodshed andonly three persons were arrested. All three, heart of the Empress by between between closestthe eparchial centers. archive and treasury were transportedtoPetersburg, church relics and icons were distributed officers were arrestedimmediately, prevent to their possible escape. Military banners, to Petersburg. The official document skips the introductory part, stating only that Cossack Ataman Kalnyshevskii, judge Holovatyi, and chief scribe ( officials the Sich,around Tekelli read Catherine’s decree to the Cossacksand ordered example, in his version, after the ceremonial meeting, lunch an and excursion imperialfor form by form by local bishops in the early 19 aromanticized in collected Korzh, Nikita Cossack former the to attributed story, transmitted Potemkin. Personal Correspondence],” (Moscow: Nauka, 1997), 99-100. 1997), Nauka, (Moscow: Correspondence],” Personal Potemkin. 80 General Petr Tekelli, to the Empress dated 6 June 1775. materials on Zaporizhia the history:Nikopol],” In [The Nikopol’ Zaporozh’ia: istorii dlia “Materialy Karelin, Ioann see also: Churches, to other Church Host from transfer relics of church problem On the it. described and “destruction” the moths after several capital 79 (Odessa, 1842), accessed June 04 2012. http://gorod.dp.ua/history/doc/korzha_opovid.pdf. Korzha] Leont’evicha Nikity village Mihailovskoe and Uezd, Governorate of Ekaterinoslav inhabitant i uezda, sela Mihailovskogo, Nikity Leont’evicha Korzha 78 idrevnostei istorii in Gavriil],” Tver of archbishop by Reported II. Catherine Empress to the report mosthumble Tekelli’s [General-poruchik Tverskoi arhiepiskop Gavriil, Soobshchil Sechi. Zaporozhskoi 77 Viacheslav Lopatin, comp., Lopatin, Viacheslav Main source on the preservance of Sich buildings – memoirs by Vasilii Abaza, who visited the former Host former the visited who Abaza, by Vasilii –memoirs buildings of Sich preservance on the source Main Gavriil Rozanov,comp., ob unichtozhenii Tekeliia, general-poruchik II Ekaterine imperatritse donesenie “Vsepoddaneishee Still,the reasons for this punishment are unknown.After all, both common Cossacks 80 [The notes of Odessa history and antiquities society] (Odessa, 1853), 3:587-588. Ustnoe povestvovanie byvshego zaporozhtsa, zhytelia Ekaterinoslavsckoi Gubernii Ekaterina II i G. A. Potemkin. Lichnaya perepiska Lichnaya Potemkin. A. i G. II Ekaterina th 79 century. The host itself reconfirmed its oath of loyalty to the to loyalty its of reconfirmed oath Thehostitself ZOOID 37 78 Korzh’s story acquiredmany additions. For (Odessa,1867), 6:523-538. [The Oral Story of the Former Zaporozhian, Former of the Story Oral [The pysar 77 The secondis orally an ) Hloba to prepare to travel Zapiski Odesskogo obshchestva [Catherine II and G. A. and II [Catherine CEU eTD Collection awarded andaccepted Russian military ranks, the idea ofthe masses, notof the elites. By latethe 18 of the poor Cossacks, I mentioned that the idea of exodus or changeorganizing the Cossack exodus toof the Ottomans doesthe not seem very convincing.sovereign was Poltavs’ka oblast’ andvillages were numerous and stretched asfaras thenorthern partofthe contemporary 83 Podniprovia in Hloba],” Ivan Host Scribe Last the of Abode [Winter Hloby Ivana Pysaria Viis’kovoho legacy] (Munich, 1965), 1:186-381. Svitlana Abrosimova and Svitlana Mohul’ova, “Zymivnyk Ostann’oho Kalnyshevskii was one of the richest and most influential people in the region. inthe people influential most and richest the of one was Kalnyshevskii have asource on the economic situation inlate Zaporozhia.As an authority figure, to create the inventory of no threat tothe empire. imperial justelites amistake. or Still, thereareseveral reasonssay to that the Atamanposed false accusation by overzealous officials, power struggle between old regional and new objective needto create these martyrs? certainlythey martyrs became only but after imperial the intervention. was But an there threat to the state, capable of organizing revolt or becoming symbols for opposition? Well, Ataman. See Polons’ka-Vasylenko, See Ataman. 81 Zaporizhzhia” in Zaporizhzhia” Istorii Doslidzhennia Sotsial’no-Economichnogo dlia Dzherelo iak Starshyny Zaporiz’koi “Maino Vasylenko, Polons’ka- see Nataliia 1775, in punished leaders, Cossack of inventories For scholars. to introduced Museum, Department of Manuscripts, Fund 3, AFD 169. Parts of it have already beenpublished and [Prydniprov’ia: historical-regional strudies] (Dnipropetrovs’k, 2010), 8:90. 2010), 82 (Dnipropetrovs’k, strudies] historical-regional [Prydniprov’ia: crossroads of historiographical traditions],” Hrybovs’kyi, “Istoriia Nikopolia Vladyslav See na perekhresti istoriografichnykh roubles. tradytsii [The 138362 history of was Nicopol’ at the fortress Kerch important ofstrategically building the of financing Mil’chev, “Povernennia Viis’ka Zaporiz’koho pid Tsars’kyi Skipetr,” 616. Just forcomparison: imperial revisors found more then 47000 roubles in cash only when arrested the The inventory of rather impressive ofrather The inventory Second, when I spoke about the reasons to dissolve Zaporizhia and constant revolts Two days later after the dissolution of the host the imperial auditors arrived in order I will argue that theaccusations of Kalnyshevskii wereunreasonable. It be could [History and Culture of the Dniper Region] (Dnipropetrovs’k, 1998), 30-47. Zaporizhzhia XVIII stolittia taioho spadshchyna . 82 On a personal level he had very much to lose and the idea of him starshyna’s Zaporizhzhia XVIII stolittia ta ioho spadshchyna, starshyna this properties and revision, we estates.Thanks to properties is now stored in the Dnipropetrovs’k Historical Dnipropetrovs’k the in stored now is properties Prydniprov’ia: Istoryko-kraieznavchi doslidzhennia 38 83 had nothing against enserfment of their poor their of enserfment against hadnothing th century many Cossack officers were [Zaporizhia of the 18 of the [Zaporizhia 1:291-317. The state Istoriia ta Kultura th century and its 81 His estates CEU eTD Collection 1904), 25:24. Quoted by P. A. Ivanov, “K istorii zapozozhskikh kazakov posle unichtozheniia Sechi” in Sechi” unichtozheniia posle kazakov zapozozhskikh istorii “K Ivanov, A. P. by Quoted okazyvaiutsia. lodkakh rybach’ikh na promyshlennikov vvide velikim i chislom Ochakova v okolichnosti 85 Lopatin, Starshyna became the rhetoric commons, of forwhom it was a matter of survival starvation.or “traditional rights and freedoms”, which a century before was the rhetoric of Cossack elites, into incorporated of society.were almost rhetoric theimperial The brothers-in-arms, and 84 near Ochakov …” Ochakov near Sich. “To my surprise, I read … on former Zaporozhians … appearing in large numbers the comparedyear with be Sultan letters can Rumiantsev’s the a afterthe dissolution of and Russia’s wrath? exodus risk it. I doubt own interests, which hecertainly Would welcomeunderstood. otherpowers organized Empress. Could he leademigration to the Ottomans orHabsburgs? No, it was against his himself was the enemy number one forrebellious commoners, not some distant Emperor or was his power derivedfrom ranksmoney, andhe lacked supportpopular and the Ataman with Russia. Could Kalnyshevskii becomethe a regionsecond and there Pugachev was no power andwilling lead to a acceptpeasant a protectorate war? No,over Cossacks and fight andupper of theparts Cossack society,yet wasunable toreap the fruits of this conflict. mob. angered support was highly questionable. Once he even had to dress into amonk’s robes andflee the Kalnyshevskii himself suppressed several peasant and Cossack revolts, thus his popular spoilt, and betrayed brotherhood and traditions were very common in the 1760s. “ Polons’ka-Vasylenko, K nedoumeniiu moemu mezhdu prochim prochital ya v raporte vashem o byvshikh zaporozhtsakh, chto oni Rumiantsev’s initial accusation Kalnyshevskiiof in plan the to pledge allegiance to KalnyshevskiiCould asecondbecome Mazepa? RussiaNo, achieved dominance in Third, the revolts of common Cossacksofficers, against who became rich, were Ekaterina II, Ekaterina in nothing hadgeneral against into transformation 84 The empire masterfully antagonized (both by action and inaction) thelower 85 661. It may mean either total confidence of theimperial officials in the threat Zaporizhzhia XVIII stolittia ta ioho spadshchyna, 39 dvorianstvo 107-126. . ZOOIID (Odessa, ” CEU eTD Collection dissent. signs noticenot any of anddid his memoirs left 1775 in there who travelledautumn an became ordinary town – Pokrovsk Pokrovskoe). (or The noble Russian Vasilii Abaza, need toapply it. repressto any signs of disobediencehesitate and notto to force.use However, there nowas http://www.vostlit.info/Texts/Dokumenty/Ukraine/XVIII/1760-1780/Abaza_V_N/text1.htm. Abaza’sN. memoirs with the description of the Zaporozhian Sich], accessed 04 June 2012. ( following dissolution. When appointing Colonel Petr Norov as anew commander 2.3Restoration of the Cossack hosts (1775-1791) the of thesmall, internal of problem dissolution Sich. inthis,presumably Frontier exploitationeven myth interstate ofthe andboth competition 89 Zaporiz’koi Sichi. Kaiuk, See host. the of dissolution the following resistance active Cossacks’ on documents 88 Obozrenie, 2004), 144-148. weaken the Polish state before thenextpartition. weakenbefore the state Polish title later himself for inspire toin order insurrections Orthodox in PolandEastern and Ideology in the LastThird of the 18th – First Third of the 19 veka XIX Treti – Pervoi XVIII Treti largely thanks to Potemkin, to thanks largely supposed thatPotemkin, yet a similar ideais already inpresent the recentSvitlana research. Kaiuk the removaland Rumiantsev, Kalnyshevskii, between intrigues personal of problem onthe speculate not of Kalnyshevskiiemigration, started from from below, or theit can of exodus comingmean only from the Ataman regionand thathis supporters and discarding the the possibility of initial accusation was was a fake.in I willthe interest of and 87 86 komendant Vasilii N. Abaza, Vasilii Potemkin’s fund (Fund 52) in the Russian State Military Historical Archive (RGVIA) contains no Andrey Zorin, Kaiuk, Documentary sources do not speak about any disorder or revolts during the months 89 Znyshchennia Zaporiz’koi Sichi. However, with the application of imperial law imperialand bureaucracy many ) of ) theof former host capital, General Matvei Muromtsov orderedhim ready to be Kormia Dvuglavogo Orla… Russkaia Literatura iGosudarstvennaia Ideologiia vPoslednei 88 Otryvok iz memuarov V.N.Abazy s opisaniem Zaporozhskoi Sechi The former center of the Host after the requisition of the military symbols 86 while Andrey Zorin proved that Potemkin needed the Ataman [Feeding the Two-Headed Eagle… The Russian Literature andState Literature The Russian Eagle… Two-Headed the [Feeding 40 87 Using this interpretation, we may see may we interpretation, this Using th century] (Moscow: Novoe Literaturnoe Novoe (Moscow: century] [an excerption from V. Znyshchennia CEU eTD Collection reorganized into aregular unit) Albanian Host was created in 1775 (existed as irregular Cossack host till 1797, later banditry, in andof the Cossacks accusations rhetoric theofficial itsvastfrontiers. Despite to protect the Ottomans rise could Theagain. borderline shifted, the but empire still neededirregulars Tavricheskaia 24:617-618. in and Albanians],” Greeks the from formed divison, of the Greek dissolution the [On sostavlennogo Albantsev i Grekov iz divisiona, Grecheskogo unichtozhenii “Ob naming it as a Greek batallion],” in batallion],” Greek as a it naming and Collegium War the to Tavriia in settled regiment Greek of the transfer [On batallionom Grecheskim onogo o imenovanii i kollegii, Voennoi v vedomstvo polka Grecheskogo v Tavrii poselennogo priniatii “O 14284, 20:101-104. Russia expandto further. did not have resources and will justto fightafter the victoriouswhile war,the whenHabsburgs the risk of the newand conflict Prussia was minimal would – the Ottomans not allow cities Kerch and Enikop and granting them special privileges],” in privileges],” special them granting and and Enikop Kerch in cities settle to command his under navy the in served having Greeks for permission On Orlov. Count General to Grekam poselit'sia v gorodakh Kerchi i Enikolp predostavleniems osobykhim vygod [Personal decree.Given 93 92 Steppe Frontier 91 Astrakhanskaia Collegium, the Commanderof thelight cavalry irregulars,and the Viceroy of Russia region. In1776he was the Vice-President (from1783 - President) of the War lover of the Empress, and the second person in the empire, was the real ruler of the New under a single military command. concentrate onthe Russian policiesborderland of military transformation. Cossacks toemigratedecided – theirfate will betraced in the following chapter. Here I will 90 Original is stored as No. 702, pp. 132-135, reverse side Fundin 12, Vernadsky NationalLibrary of Ukraine. “Imennyi. Dannyi Generalu Grafu Orlovu. O dozvolenii sluzhivshim vo flote pod predvoditel'stvom ego predvoditel'stvom pod flote vo sluzhivshim O dozvolenii Orlovu. Grafu Generalu Dannyi “Imennyi. Müller, see McNeil, of Crimea, annexation postponed the and powers by Western Russia of the containment On LeDonne, Judging from the military needs, the the ideal from military Judging Zaporozhians todisband was moment – As LeDonne noted,the whole imperial border from the Caucasus to Polandwas Istoricheskie Sochineniia o Malorossii i Malorossiianakh. 92 The Grand Strategy Potemkin immediately almost tostarted establish new irregular units. The Greek- , 194-195., ). , Novorosiiskaia 91 However, the Frontier was not closed (if it is ever possible) and , 121. PSZRI , 93 Azovskaia 90 . The TatarHost formed in 1784, was continuously in , 1st series, 30 January 1775, no. 17774, 24:312. Grigorii Potemkin, besides being prince, field marshal, field prince, being besides Potemkin, Grigorii provinces (from 1783 – 41 PSZRI , 1st series, 3August1775, no.17972, PSZRI , 1st series, 28 March 1775, no. Ekaterinoslavskaia and CEU eTD Collection 10000 men –10052 to beexact. 12620 warriors in total. men. 103 1784. 102 officers. financial documentation, the Greek-Albanian Host in 1785consisted of 567 soldiers and 101 100 97 http://www.cossackdom.com/articles/s/shiyan_katervoisko.htm. 1791. 99 of Ochakov, Kinburn, Izmail. 98 http://www.cossackdom.com/articles/s/shiyan_chernomvoisko.htm. Roman Shyian, and burghers],” in PSZRI, 1st series, 20 April 1788, no. 16647, 22:1069. “O sostavlenii kazach’ego voiska iz iamshchikov i meshchan [On the creation of Cossak hostfrom coachmen Ekaterinoslav Turkish War of 1787-1791,former Zaporozhians were alsocalled to serve in the Roman Shyian, Roman created in 1785 (existed till 1817). province to the Cossack service],” in service],” Cossack tothe province Ekaterinislav of Line Ukrainian former at living peasnts, one-yard of transfer the [On sluzhbu kazach’iu 96 http://www.cossackdom.com/articles/b/bachinska_bugvoisko.htm. 95 http://www.cossackdom.com/articles/s/shiyan_ktvoisko.htm. 2012. 94 2012. http://www.cossackdom.com/articles/s/shiyan_ grekvoisko.htm. 1812, Russo-Turkish War of 1828-1829, Crimean War 1854-1855. existence till 1796 andwas recreatedseveral for times instance– during the Patriotic Warof Roman Shyian, Lopatin, Shyian, assaults the in participated hosts other Three cavalry. – aslight Tatars fleet. the in primarily served Greeks “Ob obrashchenii odnodvortsev, poselennykh po byvshei Ukrainskoi linii v Ekaterinoslavskoi gubernii, v gubernii, v Ekaterinoslavskoi linii Ukrainskoi byvshei po poselennykh odnodvortsev, obrashchenii “Ob Bachyns’ka, Olena Roman Shyian, Shyian, Shyian, Bachyns’ka, Shyian, 101 100 98 The military value of these hosts may be judged from their numbers. Basing on the All the above-mentioned units participatedin the war with Ottomansthe 1787- The Black Sea Host in 1791 could field 7500 men at any one time, while having The Bug Host numbers became an entire regiment and in 1792 could field 1532 99 Grets’ke (Albans’ke) Kozats’ke Viis’ko Kozats’ke (Albans’ke) Grets’ke Katerynoslavs’ke Kozats’ke Viis’ko. Kozats’ke Katerynoslavs’ke Chornomors’ke Kozats’ke Viis’ko Kozats’ke Chornomors’ke Kryms’ko-Tatars’ke Kozats’ke Viis’ko Kozats’ke Kryms’ko-Tatars’ke Ekaterina II, Ekaterina The Tatar Host was more numerous – ithad 950 soldiers and 85officers in Buz’ke Kozats’ke Viis’ko Kozats’ke Buz’ke Katerynoslavs’ke Kozats’ke Viis’ko Kozats’ke Katerynoslavs’ke Grets’ke (Albans’ke) kozats’ke viis’ko kozats’ke (Albans’ke) Grets’ke 96 Chornomors’ke Kozats’ke Viis’ko Kozats’ke Chornomors’ke (1787-1796) and Black Sea Hosts (1788-1792, later resettledto Kuban’). Kryms’ko-Tatars’ke kozats’ke viis’ko kozats’ke Kryms’ko-Tatars’ke 258. Buz’ke kozats’ke viis’ko kozats’ke Buz’ke 102 The Ekaterinoslav Host was the largest and could field more then PSZRI 103 . 95 So, it seems that only the hosts that were formed from As a result ofthe growing military needin the Russian- , 1st series, 3 July 1787,no. 16552, 22:863. . . . [The Ekaterinoslav Cossack Host], accessed 04 June 2012. June 04 accessed Host], Cossack [The Ekaterinoslav [The Black Sea Cossack Host], accessed 04 June 2012. June 04 accessed Host], Cossack Sea Black [The [The Bug Cossack Host], accessed 04 June 2012. 42 [The Greek-Albanian Cossack Host], accessed 04 June [The Crimean Tatar Cossack Host], accessed 04 June 04 accessed Host], Cossack Tatar Crimean [The 94 The Bug Host was 97 CEU eTD Collection 106 certainly theirhad uses in the war, yet, I suppose, their primary role was not military. Zaporozhiansformer bemore lesscould or potent military force. The other three hosts regiment and their status of military colonists]," in bytiii o im voennymimoria, beregu poselianamipo [Ongranting Balaklavy okolo land near Balaklava lezhashchimi on the zemliami, sea polku shore to the menGrecheskom v serving in Greek sluzhashchikh nadelenii 104 extermination of its name its of extermination reforged. After all,Catherine demanded not only dissolution of Host,the but also suppressed. Consequently, both the image andthe name of the local cossackdom had to be the Frontier as a symbolthe Crimean Khan, even or the Ottoman Sultan directly. If the empire wishedtoconsolidate for its own success,traitors. then such As a a typicaltreacherous frontier tradition community, hadthey to couldPresumably,be the Zaporozhian case wasdifferent. serve the Polish and against appointed Atamans and Swedish theimperial useof law in theof appeal. courts Kings, the Don case. Potemkin himself reorganized the Don Cossacks and they did notrebel masses with the old officers andreplace these officers with new appointedonesjust – like in suppress any insurrection of the common Cossacks, or play on the dissatisfaction of the poor The empire could either side with the almost incorporated Cossack elites couldand then lifestyle, Frontier wouldremove its theempire disorderly from internal provinces. elements alternative would be an ideal solution – the Cossacks would be happy to preserve their new borderlands and reorganized just likeempire neededthe irregulars, why thewas initial Host dissolvedtheand just not resettledtothe Don and Iaik Hosts? At first glance, such an 105 “Manifest on the destruction of the Zaporozhian Sich,”190. Zaporozhian of the destruction on the “Manifest Besides low numbers the discipline of these irregulars could be rather questionable as well. See “O Marc Raeff, “In the Imperial Manner,” in Manner,” Imperial the “In MarcRaeff, First, the Zaporozhian Cossacks had the reputation of being not just rebels, but the Since open. remains dissolution Zaporizhia the of question the Additionally, 106 –itis doubtful that such punishment was employed only as a Catherine the Great the Catherine PSZRI 43 , 1st series, 29 October 1797, no. 18227, 24:785. (London:Macmillan, 1972), 207. 104 105 CEU eTD Collection project, which nevertheless was a powerful rhetorical tool. a move in the Balkan competition between the Romanovs andthe Habsburgs, an unrealistic different form in New Russia. Itevolvedinto the “New Russian project” an attempt– toturn freedoms”. retaliation for the robbery of state-sponsored settlers in the lands of “traditional Cossack Derzhavin with explanational remarks by Ia. Grot] (Saint Petersburg, 1870), 3:604. 1870), 110 Petersburg, (Saint Grot] Ia. by remarks explanational with Derzhavin 109 108 cossackdom. the into criminals and of runawayas – acceptance one permission, without lands of –occupation two banditry, 107 111 claim over the Byzantine legacy and expulsion of Turks fromtheir Europe. own faith and history.to the province, which belongedto the Greeks once, restoredits original image andregained All this couldRussia this and return was accompanied be by the ellinization ofthe region. The Russiansa came step to the liberationAndrei Zorin interpreted“the Greek project” as the return of the ancientsacredplace to of Greece, powerfulDerzhavin saw annexation the ofthe Crimeaas the recovery of the ancient Russian cities. humanity…” our – consequently and Rus’, and the Byzantine Empire.Empire. Itwas symbolically connected with thelegacies ofAncient Greece, the Kievan “The Tavric Kherson – is the source of our Christianityconquests. symbols both internalfor borderland management the and for external claimsforfurther maketo include thehad itinto efficientthe use ofthe narrative, and most local all-imperial hadto conceptualize both the temporal andspatial dimensions of New Russia, theempire Zorin, comp., Grot, Iakov Lopatin, concerned them of Three host. the disband to 6 reasons provided Empress the manifest original In the Raeff, “In the Imperial Manner,” 201. Manner,” Imperial the “In Raeff, Even when the Greek project was discarded in Saint Petersburg, it was present in a The northern shore of the Black Sea had an almost sacral meaning for the Russian Second, with advance the the of and borders inclusion new of territories, the state Kormia Dvuglavogo Orla, Ekaterina II, Ekaterina 107 Sochinenia Derzhavina sob’’iasnitel’nymu primechaniyamiIa. Grota 180-181. 102 . 108 toCatherinePotemkin wrote – Gavriilin 1783. 44 111 110 Or it could be just [The Works by 109 CEU eTD Collection himselfthe traditionaladopted Cossack title ofHetmanuse the in toorder Cossack myth, Borderland warriors of the complex Frontier still bore great symbolical value. Potemkin Hosts. Sea not justreformed, completely erasedbut and tobelateras Ekaterinoslav reborn Black and exemplar of New Russian identity. The Zaporizhia, the vestigeand of thethe dark Bugtimes, wasHost, to be formed initiallyand recent glory. from The TatarSouth Host, Slavic formed from refugees those Tatars whoand decided colonists, toglory. stay itsancient to province the restored Empire in Enlightened the only Russia, could be an andCossacks were portrayed asdark times, when barbaric hordes ruled the empty space and brave Rus’ princes, the glorious advance of the Russian Empire. Bulgaris had to emphasizeimperial the space. legacy The history of Ancientof New Russia, Greece, ordered theby Potemkin mission from archbishopof St. Andrew, Evgenii the Cossack Host were namedas the ancient Greek cities: Macedonian, Epirus, Spartan. change thenameof Taganrog Sparta. to Kafa became Feodosiia, Taman’ transformed intoFanagoriia, therewas aplan even to Crimea, Khersones reemergedas Sevastopol’, Akht Mechet wasrenamed into Simferopol’, theseof projects two Potemkin started the “toponymic revolution”: Tavrida replaced many of which had little or no connection with the region and loyal ofthe forgeand identity eachout colonists, aunified to a melting into pot, the province other. 113 112 Potemkin’s Papers. Reported by A.A. Vasil’chikov],” 115 infantry Greek regiment from the Albanian Host],” in 114 Zorin, 88. tradytsii,” istoriografichnykh perekhresti na Nikopolia “Istoriia Hrybovs’kyi, “Iz bumag kniazia G. A. Potemkina-Tavricheskogo. Soobshchil A. A. Vasil’chikov [From the prince G. A. G. prince the [From Vasil’chikov A. A. Soobshchil Potemkina-Tavricheskogo. A. G. kniazia bumag “Iz of one creation the [On voiska Albanskogo iz polka Grecheskogo pekhotnogo odnogo sformirovanii “O The Greek-Albanian theHost become symbol would of unity between ancientthe The Russian government shapedthe imperial time thesame way as it managed But all But connectedwiththese irregular also units were legacy. the Cossack Kormia Dvuglavogo Orla, 102 . 113 In the In the contextsame the companies theof Greek PSZRI 45 Russkii Arkhiv Russkii , 1st series, 3 August 1779, no. 14901, 20:855. 14901, no. 1779, 3 August series, , 1st [The Russian Archive], 9 (1879), 19. 9 (1879), Archive], [The Russian 115 The times of the Tatars 112 In the context 114 CEU eTD Collection Cossack units and used the Cossack myth to strengthen the creating to the used defendFrontier theimperial tradition border their language. Potemkin imperial claims over conquered could be very flexible –after all, the first step in forcing subjects to dosomething is to speak Collegium in Saint Petersburg and Hetman of the Cossack HostsSouth, andEmperor the for West, proconsul Potemkin the could be President the War of in the South. Imperial rule another interpretation is possible aswell. Cossack Hosts was a concession from the government to the freedom-loving region. Yet, Military Councils still heldthe 18-19 some power. It is possibleallowed (even forto a time)assume to preserve thatsome traditional were they On theother, Host. Don to the the similar organization, unified traits had hand, one existencethe on even on the brink at theof turnthe of already converted to state peasants, irregular units still existed in New Russia. These units, territories. neighboring over claim legitimate less or more giving myth, Frontier the of prolongation could possibly be used by the empire not only as low-cost irregular units, but also as a 117 Moldavian crown as well, if the thatassume also possible thistitleplay in to gaina role could to thePotemkin’s plan Greek project would be successful. king bearing the Piast crown, but as Hetman recognized by Orthodox population. inspire revolts in gain overPoland, thewesternRussianpower even borderlands, ifnotas 116 Ibid, 147. Ibid, Zorin, The same way as the Russian Tsar could be the Khan for the East, Basileus for the While the Cossacks of the Hetmanate and Slobozhanshchyna regions had been Kormia Dvuglavogo Orla, th centuries. Cossack customary law regulated the internal life of the units; their 144-148 . *** 46 117 Thus, the Cossacks the Thus, 116 It is CEU eTD Collection proved their value both as inexpensive troops and settlers to invigorate the economic lifeof the economic settlers and toinvigorate troops asinexpensive theirvalue proved both the of creation was region. protection shaping was the only reason for wasthe to Cossackbe suppressed Hosts and replacedexistence by the – officialimperial imply identity theseparate.independent Quite that tobe localwas contrary, this identity one. reasoning In no way I implyfor theirthat the identityforging a new local identity – connected with the region, yet loyal to actively the was empire the empire.second, At In aconcession. making nowas wayglance, first at I government, were totally rightin the monopolization of coercive means. for other means to control the local population.From the state-building perspective, they looked region inthe officials imperial the new him and with died gamble power Potemkin’s while the Greek project, if it wasever feasible, was gradually becoming just an illusion. to not pretendlandsThey claim Potemkin’s totheirdomains, could ambition. thePolish rulers of the region had neither the power nor the trust theof Empress to build plans rivaling Adding the Frontierin 1796. disbanded was Host and Ekaterinoslav 1792 in the Kuban’ to resettled was Host symbolism, longerI necessarycan to control and pacify add,the New Russia region. Consequently,that the Black Sea afterdid not needPotemkin’s large numbers the government ended, Ottomans the with 1787-1791 of war the once that say, can I logic, ofdeath the light in cavalry1791 whilethejust a coercive semi-regular force,new useful in times of waryet dangerous in times of peace. armed Following this people were no claimrule. possibly,and, to to provinces other lands. At the same time he used this myth to consolidate his own power over New Russia 118 Lopatin, To summarize, by the landsandthe summarize, to bannersCossacks,by granting To military Thus, weseeanotherdisband to orresettle reason Zaporozhiansformer – Judging from the state-buildingpure perspective, the reformed Cossack hosts were Ekaterina II, Ekaterina 258. 118 Semi-autonomous militarized Semi-autonomous hadalready colonists 47 CEU eTD Collection affected the morale of the Cossacks and could not last long. Cossacks either intostatepeasantry regular troops.into Naturally,or such uncertainty they werenot acknowledged as aseparate the yetestate empire situationally – transferred by separatenot and always consistent decrees. Cossacks’ status was rather uncertain and the region. However, if hosts even the exist,continued to this existence still was regulated 48 CEU eTD Collection x Consequently, thepurpose of this chapteris twofold: empire responded by introducing additional legislation and making some concessions. serfdom was introducedtheto NewRussiaregion accelerating ofemigration.thepace The population accustomedto the self-rule. A process of mass emigration started. In 1796 imperial officials notimmediatelywere able totake control over the region andits of of the common Cossacksinto non-privileged estates) for Zaporizhiaas well, integration (gradual integrationUkrainiansome historians thethat to empire planned use the Slobodian of socialmodel of the officers to the army and nobility and transformation 120 121 building, indirectdirect rule. to Still, centralization while is administrative an essential part of state between Azov NewRussian a classicaland provinces the example– movement of from law. imperial to accustomedto the opportunities freedomof on the Frontier were not always ready to submit runaway serfs, and marginal elements like brigands and deserters – those who were benefits imperial rule bring.could Cossacks, determined preserve to their traditional status, 119 population. Tilly, Yatsenko, McNeil, to bring migrants back, their success leadingto reemigration in the early 19 additional Cossack hosts outside the Russian empire by émigrés, governmental attempts To study the emigration from New Russia in the late 18 In 1775 the empire dissolved the Zaporozhian Host and redistributedits lands The Enlightened monarchs of the late 18 Coercion, Capital and European States 120 Chapter Cossack3: rights – from traditional to legally acknowledged Steppe Frontier 119 Integratsiia ukrains’koho kozatstva the process does not always proceed smoothly. There is an assumption among In contrast, population of the frontier regions was not very conscious of the , 190. , 103-106. , 24. 49 th century were conscious of the value of th century, creation the of the th 121 century. however, CEU eTD Collection soldiers orstate peasants. For them emigration was anatural, ifthe not only,choice. Second, discontented with the dissolution of the host and did not wish to become either regular Cossacksstrove to who preserve their ancienttraditions and life-style were rather over adecade constantof migration. Historical Sciences diss., Dnipropetrovsk National University, 1999), 12. 1999), University, National Dnipropetrovsk diss., Sciences Historical 124 one night 1000men fled abroad. shores of the Black Sea, explaining theirneed to have accessfishing to grounds, and howin theto of passage therightRussian officials how theyasked for retells the Ottoman Empire across the border of a rival empire. along the frontierreform and the hosts while alternative Cossack communities existed gain. Moreover, it became doubly difficult for the empire to reconstruct the regional identity Russia’s loss of the thousands of armed and skilled men was multiplied by the Ottoman to the other is a double loss for the one side and a double3.1Danubian alternatives (1778-1828) gain for the other. In our case, x 122 5000. 123 Svitlana Kaiuk, “Zadunais’ka Sich (1775-1828 rr.) [the Transdanubian Sich (1775-1828)]” (Candidate of Rozanov, Skal’kovskii, pressing considerations in the formation of policy of in thepressing considerations theFrontier.toward formation increase the manpower resources extraction fromthe Cossack regions were nolonger to and home back migrants attract to needs state when the period, the – 1820s-1830s Trace the general trends in the Russian policies towards the Cossack Hosts in the late 123 In the former Cossack Korzh’s story an episode about the flight of the Cossacks to Judging fromthe state-building perspective, themigration people fromof one state In the periodof 1775-1828 there were anumber of reasons to emigrate. First, those Recent studies proved that this migration did not occur at a single moment but only a but moment single occurat not that thismigration did studies proved Recent Ustnoe Povestvovanie Istoriia Novoi Sichi Novoi Istoriia , 14-17. , 3:234. 122 124 In laterthe romanticized versions grewthis figure to 50 CEU eTD Collection while the state nothave did enough resources to patrol its steppe borders. Furthermore, the southernwas border porous – escape waseasy thelocalfor population population,unwilling enserfed,to become joined the emigrants andbolstered their numbers. in accordance withotherprovinces ofthe Consequently, empire. borderlandpart of recruitment obligation were introduced to New Russia, bringing the social life of the region emigration. As a result, in 6.000-7.0001778 men, mainly formerZaporozhians, an took oath to resettlethe thehostrival to yet,empire, Russia ready wasnotspontaneous stop to Frontier population was not accustomed to such policies. 1782 and 1795 in order to extract resources efficientlymore from the regions,yet the imperial manifest two months later. two imperial manifest Host dissolution the status of thethe legal point view, of these Zaporozhians have could been executed. Moreover, afterCossacks the was very uncertain until the publication of the punished resettlementpunished into another statewithout official permission anddesertion. punished as deserters or runaway peasants. Indeed, the Russian laws of the equally time heard rumors about the dissolution but very few returned home. Possibly they feared being were spending the 1775choice when their lifestyle was directly by threatened radical change.summer Third, Cossacks who fishing near was initially this group not migratetheready to Ottomanlands,these to Cossackshad little the shores of the Black Sea may only have 129 PSZRI 128 127 from from theirfarms newly villagesfoundedto cities.and with the imposition theof imperial administration,many Cossacks wereforced toresettle 126 125 Kaiuk, “Ob uchineniivo vsei imperii novoi revizii [On organizationthe of the new all-imperialrevision],” in 190-193. Sich”, Zaporozhian of the destruction On the “Manifest. Kaiuk, 87-90. tradytsii,” istoriografichnykh perekhresti na Nikopolia “Istoriia Hrybovs’kyi, , 1st series, 16 November 1781, no. 15278, 21:304-306. Ironically,the in1775 empire was quick toarrestthe Ataman forpossibleintention Zadunais’ka Sich Zadunais’ka Sich , 75. , 76-77. 127 Fourth, the empire organized censuses (revisions) in 51 125 This too bred resentment. Even if 128 In 1796 serfdom and then and serfdom 1796 In 129 126 From CEU eTD Collection butchered during the 1790s-1810s. conflicts erupted into violence.and open Several settlements the both from sides were Zaporozhiansthe sought aswell. profitable fish to trade access This competition ledto thesettlements of ( Empire accepted not only the former Zaporozhians, also but Old Believers from Don accordance with the oftheneeds Ottoman state. 132 on the Military Frontier of Austrian Empire 1785 –1790] (Zaporizhzhia:Tandem-U, 2007), 25. 131 of loyalty theof to Ottomans. 130 supported thesultan’s ( decree contested) andsimply toresettle refused peacefully. when in Only 1780, military units Cossacks settlepreferred on the rightCossacks bankthe of that the Danube, more demanded remote Istanbul from Russian migration territory.the of However, beginning very manythe from example, the OchakovFor conditions. beneficial the most for search in government central the and pashas steppe Ottoman statethe allowed Cossacks to improve their position by bargaining with different (regionlife ofCossacks.the only The Sultan military while the therequired service natureof dangerouslyglance rather as favorable the well – Ottoman Empire didnotinterfere inthe intercommunal closecontinuationand theof lifestyle traditional waspossible. Social conditions were atfirst to Russiaenvironment of the andDanube was similar to thatstill of the Dniper; the fishing grounds were rich Nekrasovtsy Kaiuk, Mil’chev, Volodymyr Kaiuk, In the late the 1780s Zaporozhian Sich,which became Transdanubian, was rebuiltin However, notallconditions werefavorable in Ottomanthe lands. The Ottoman What was the situation for the Zaporozhians in Ottoman the Empire? Natural Zadunais’ka Sich Zadunais’ka Sich ), who had settled along the Danube from the early 18 Zaporozhtsi na Viis’kovomu kordoniAvstriis’koi imperii 1785-1790 rr. Nekrasovtsy , 108-112. , 84-87. 130 132 firman Cossacks were close to the best fishing grounds. the fishing best close to were Cossacks ), were), theCossacks settlements relocated in 52 131 th century. The [Zaporozhians CEU eTD Collection amnesties wereissued repetitively suggests that they were notsuccessful and had be to successful successful only partially. Ottomans repatriateOttomans thethe Russian Cossacks back to Empire. Cossacks would return. Fourth, using diplomatic channels Russia demanded that the Cossacks’ new settlements. At the sametimepromisedwealth they and freedom if only the migrated, and threatenedRussian agentsanti-Ottoman spread propaganda among Cossacks,those who hadalready to punish themempire used military severelyunits to catch runaways on borders and bring themwhen back. Third, stop “empty”Russian talks about existence of free Cossack communities outside Russia. Second, the army would emigration was severely Corporalpunished. punishmentoccupy and exile toSiberiawere used to the subjects. no obstaclesthe Cossacksreturn, raised whileRussian the to recruitment of Ottomans to Ottomans became a zone for competing propaganda –the Russians sought to persuade the and Russia between the borderland Consequently, deserters. Russian with numbers their 1830. Selim’s reforms in 1798, the Serbian uprising 1804-1813, and the Greek Revolution 1821- Mil’chev, Kaiuk, Katyrlez. 135 134 Sich. 1775-1828] (Odessa: MP Hermes, 1994), 13. Bachyns’kyi, Anatolii see settlements, Zaporozhian on more dangerously close to the Sich inthe war stationed of army, 1806-1812. Russian Thethe of new,last,advance and Sich wasBelievers builtOld in Dunavetswith 1814. conflict in For lasting to due 1806 in abandoned was Katyrlez Gallipoli). in villages Cossack example, (for Balkans over all settlements dispersed Karaurman), example, (for Cossacks married for villages Vylkove), example, (for migrants the for camps temporary existed 133 Kaiuk, Although,the majority of the Zaporozhians had already returned to Russia in 1828. also There settlement. Cossack only the not but host, Transdanubian of the center was the this Naturally, 134 For example,For theRussian government constantly amnesties.issued The thatfact What wasRussia’s response to these challenges? First, spread encouragingrumors of Zadunais’ka Sich As warfare diminishedtheir numbers the Cossacks were permitted toreplenish Znyshchennia Zaporiz’koi Sichi 133 Zaporozhtsi na Viis’kovomu kordoni Subsequently, the Cossacks had to suppress revolts by the pashas against pashas the by revolts suppress to had Cossacks the Subsequently, , 84-87. . , 20. 53 Sich Zadunais’ka. 1775-1828 135 These means were means These [the Transdanubian CEU eTD Collection returned could obtain high ranks in the Russian army, becoming symbols of the all-forgiving in Iasi organized groups of repatriates and supported them materially; those Cossacks, who the possibility of the Cossacks’ return. Balkans and the participation of the Transdanubians in their suppression greatly postponed Habsburgs. their themovedand loyalty pledged with further to unsatisfied Ottomans, in1785 the whereas 7.00010.000 – continued toserve the Sultan the Cossacks about the prolongation of the amnesty. of theprolongation about Cossacks the The consul, however, was cautious and feared a possible provocation – he only remindedwithout difficulties. cross the toborder inorder recommendations for consulate the Russian important the eventfor Cossacks. Several high-ranking Cossack officers immediately asked Sea Host. them started to to defect Russia already during the war of and1787-1791 to join the Black were being restored in Russia ignitedinterest among some Cossacks. Small numbers of 139 138 constantly constantly renewed. “O vyzove voinskikh nizhnikh chinov, krest’ian i pospolityh liudei samovol’no otluchivshikhsia za granitsu [On thecallza to the low-rank military and peasants,who otluchivshikhsia leftthe country without samovol’no permit],” in liudei pospolityh i krest’ian chinov, nizhnikh voinskikh vyzove “O 136 140 level. local onthe Cossacks 137 the among amnesties about information spread to attempted provinces borderland Similar amnesties were later issued by Alexander Iand Nicolas I. Russian consul in inIasi and governorsthe country],” left of who the others, and peasants military, rank low for Russia to arrive to term the of prolongation year one the [On god odin na eshche prochim i krest’ianam chinam, voinskim nizhnim zagranitsu vsem otluchivshimsia iavki sroka dlia prodolzhenii “O 5 May 1779, no. 14870, 20:817. Mil’chev, Ibid,94. For the examples of manifestos see: manifestos of examples Forthe Bachyns’kyi, Kaiuk, Third, Russian agents workedin order to bring Cossacks back; the Russian consulate However, in time reemigration began to increase. First, the rumors that the hosts Second, theSecond, death Catherine andof the in1797 ascension newthe of Tsar became an Zadunais’ka Sich Zaporozhtsi na Viis’kovomu kordoni, 96. 139 Sich Zadunais’ka, 136 For instance, in the summer of 1784 only persons83 returned, , 141. 32 . 54 PSZRI , 1st series,, 27 April 1780,no. 15006, 20:932. 140 Later, in 1798 pashas’ revolts in the in revolts pashas’ 1798 in Later, 138 and 1.000 Transdanubians, 1.000 and PSZRI , 1st series, 137 CEU eTD Collection since and the 1800s not a one-time resettlement 1828.in but continuous migration since 1775 till the 1790s, their repatriation was a lengthy process Voisko) 1807 the Budzhak Host of the Danubian Delta ( motherland. 141 143 142 ennoblement. personal also meant period, in the 1820 agroup of 1000moved back to become Russian subjects. group was becoming a majority. Ifin 1784 only 83 men returned during three months propaganda. As the of flow repatriates grewonly with time,is it possible toassume that this suppress Greeks Serbs.and These Cossacks werea perfect target forthe Russian Russians in the wars of 1787-1791Transdanubians and 1806-1812. onlyNor theyto avoidwish serviceinto serve thein theSultanfishing Russian and army – didold. With time, however,notanother group emerged. Those Cossacks weremoreinterested who wish to fight with orthe it andliving moneyfor theFrontierof warriors service,as receiving nothing against military trade, mid-18 in the visible thosein the repatriation. Besides, thestratification of the Cossack society, which was already preferringby the Russian army, the natural aging of the holders an of or occupation a resettlement threatof constant Believers, theOld theconflict Persistent with old traditionmarried – all played a role life, those deserters, who joined the major in the Russian army Russian the in major For example, in 1795 Cossack officer T.Pomelo officer Cossack 1795 in example, For Ibid., 178. Ibid., 158. Ibid., For a number of reasons, the first peak of this reemigration movement was 1806- The same way as the emigration of the Cossacks was not a one-night exodus in 1775 exodus a one-night not was Cossacks ofthe emigration the as way same The Fifth, the Russian empire specially created new hosts to attract Transdanubians – in Fourth,the life in the Ottoman Empire was not a paradise as some could have hoped. was created 141 . Later th . century, only sharpened in the emigration. Part of the Cossacks had Cossacks the of Part the emigration. in sharpened only century, See Kaiuk, See , in 1828, the empire formed the Danubian Host. Zadunais’ka Sich 55 immediately after his defection got the rank of the 2 , 145-146. According to the Table of Ranks, this rank Ust’-Dunaiskoe Budzhatskoe Kazach’e 143 142 nd CEU eTD Collection resettle toRussia, receiving status and privileges of the foreign colonists. With the chance of thousand Cossacks participated in the suppressionremote from the border, thus reemigration became more difficult. of this uprising, thedemarcate border. The Sultan resettledCossacks the tothe once more, regions more yet many preferredwas forbidden to settle there. Both Russian and Ottoman administrationsto worked to Treaty of Bucharest in 1812 Partly, host. ofthetheBudzhak Russian the dissolution and policy inconsistentwith to due the Danube islands were considered a neutral territoryfive months after its creation. and it questionable as well.Consequently, theBudzhak host was disbandedin June 1807 –only is value itsmilitary thisunit, diverse discipline of origins and thediverseConsidering deserters, runaways and very soon it startedto create problems for the local population. 1807 it numbered 1387 men. 145 1807, no. 22465, 29:1024. specially specially thefor repatriates. in the close proximity of the RussianMikhelson to thedirectly Danube endangered Transdanubians,in were1806 whoDecember army. Fourth, the Tsar allowedcentury. rapid advance Third, the of Russian troops under the commandof General Ivan to create a new host war with Russia were not popular among Transdanubians at the beginning of the 19 1812 the Cossacks had toparticipateHowever, inthe the war. ideas generalwarof in and destroyedthe in Sich Katyrlez.with Second, thethe start of Russo-Turkish conflict of 1806- 1807. First, conflict between Transdanubians and host formed from the Transdanubian Zaporozhians as Ust'-Dunaiskoe],” in 144 Bachyns’kyi, “O imenovanii voiska formiruemogo iz Zadunaiskikh Zaporozhtsev, Ust'-Dunaiskim [on the naming ofthe naming [onthe Ust'-Dunaiskim Zaporozhtsev, Zadunaiskikh iz formiruemogo voiska imenovanii “O The new peak of repatriation started in the 1820s with the Greek Revolution. Five dissatisfied were Cossacks Partly, the weakened. migrants of the flow 1812-1820 In Sich Zadunais’ka, 144 145 43 Many Transdanubians joined the host and by the summer . However, the besides emigrants the host attractedbrigands, 56 Nekrasovtsy PSZRI sharpened and , 1st, series, 20 February Nekrasovtsy th CEU eTD Collection of the Cossack estate in this period. Returning Cossacks did not even raise the questionpeasant war, which caused only reaction. of encouraging emigration to proved more efficientbe in the thanFrontier realities Pugachev’s this units. It seems that such an innocent tool everyday of resistance asspread of rumors enserfed, thewas land granted tothehosts, fora time Cossack customary law wasin use in some concessions made population, preserve to wishing Russia, challenges. the reality to policies state of to the Cossacks – they century in New Russia and Bessarabia can be seen only as an improvisation and adaptation were invited as Black Sea), can interpretedbe as foreignempire’s plannedmove, the hosts created in the 19 early colonists and were not almostof whole host the group– of 1828 was the last big one. flexibility of itsrule. By various means it was ableto prepare and organize the reemigration new HostsDanubian Azov and forthese émigrés, the government Russian demonstrated even if the group led by him consisted of less than thousand men. 147 It isunknown, however, was itan actual plan of the Istanbul or a rumor spread by the Russian agents. as a whole to Russia – Hladkyi received the rank of colonel, Cross of St. George (4 regalia granted by the Ottomans boregreat valuesymbolised and the returnofthe Cossacks Transdanubians led by Iosyp Hladkyi and bearing banners and relics. Military banners and lifestyle. Anatolia –aplace completely incompatibleunknown andthus with the traditional appealing choice. There alsowasafear resettle that Ottomans the would the to Host the Russian intervention and the close proximity of the Russian army it was rather an 146 Ibid., 171. Kaiuk, If the creation of the first reformed hosts (Greek-Albanian, Tatar, Bug,Ekaterinoslav, Still, the story of Transdanubians andtheir return home emphasizes another problem In May In May the Russian1828 government thelast ofthe group attracted major Zadunais’ka Sich 146 The war with Russia in 1828-1829 only intensified the already ongoing process. , 161-165. 57 147 With the creation of th class), th CEU eTD Collection turning points. turning imperial attitude towards theintegration theof cossackdom, outlining its phasesmajor and was its rationale, answer its logic? To these I questions trace the thewill of evolution as inclusion the of Cossack theestate intohierarchy. imperial imperial society was complete – not as transfer of the former Cossacks into other estates but dutiesacknowledged privileges.and the integration Presumably, thethe Cossacksintoof corporate identity to thethem Cossacksandtransformed intoaseparate estate withlegally acquired conquered or regions notwere very integrationist. Usually, only the pledge of it was adapted to all other hosts of the empire (except the Ural). 1835 Statute ( their traditional lifestyle. In 1828 the Transdanubians returned to the Russian Empire. In 3.2Reorganisation Transformationand (till 1835) possibly,not the worst choice. 1830s their possibilities werelimited. ratheragain But -taking victor’sthe side was, powers looking for In any case, if fifty years the Cossacksbefore werestill able tomaneuver between several highest bid at thefishermen. the abandoning its militaristiclifestylebecoming similar peasants and and to the same time not alwaysnot Frontier yetclose, did shifted, it itsinhabitantsThe was transformed. cossackdom serving in return,the restoration traditional rights and of the primeSich. Their interests were economic. in the Society 148 Robert H.McNeal, “The Reform of Cossack Military Service in the Reign of Alexander II,” in , edited by B. K. Kiraly and G. E.Rothenberg (New York: Colorado University Press, 1979), 1:409. Initially, prior to the 18 what smooth and But undisrupted? Certainly,Was thisintegrationistnot. process In 1775 the Zaporozhians resettled to the Ottomans interested in the preservation of Polozhenie ) of the Cossack military service was introduced to the Don. Soon th century century Russian traditional policiesat the aimed newly 58 148 This statute granted a War and War CEU eTD Collection maintain the military borderland (Frontier asaplace, military borderland). hadit to defendborderlands to faced andstate – primarily military was the aspect by the Frontier existed onseverallevels, the empire hadtosolve aset ofproblems. Initially the regions, the state had to acknowledge the existing Frontier tradition and learn discardedcompletely.to use it. As capital during the mid 18 integration reforms. Theintensifying betrayers, potential to punish loyalties and question Cossacks’ all to Petersburg completion of this processCossacks andthe Swedes proved unreliablenature of the Cossack yettroops, allowedwas the St. delayed by power-struggleCossacks’ disloyalty cost couldRussian state Indeed, alot. the alliance between part ofthe in the were to moreproceed rapidly in the southern region, where frontiers were unstable and to promote state monopoly over However, means.coercive general policies ofintegration struggleto increase Russia had the efficiency resource extractionof the from provinces and Russia was challenged by Sweden fielding pressure a Russia experienced. regular army. In orderFrom the state-building perspective, thesepolicies thewere enough for level external of to survive inter-statemanpower resourceswas especially for thetrue complex frontier requiring region a quite offinanciallot and for conquest and theempire. into from theinclusion any almost change maintenance, not loyalty fromthe local eliteto was whilerequired, the life ofthe region notexperiencedid speak of further expansion. 149 150 Mark Raeff, Rieber, The next turning point was the advance of the Frontier in the late 18 Still, the despite strife efficiently tomore extract resources from the Cossack The situation radically changed with the Great Northern War 1700-1721, when 1700-1721, War Northern Great with the changed radically situation The Comparative Ecology, Political Ideas and Institutions in Imperial Russia th 180 century, gradual but not integration was only interrupted, . 59 149 (Boulder: Westview Press, 1994), 126-140. From the Frontier perspective, this th century, when century, 150 CEU eTD Collection the early the early 19 1817. The Tatar Host was dissolved in 1796. The Greek-Albanians were reformedand in transferred intostate peasants in while 1797, unitthe itselfinto wasreformed regular one in were toself-sustain themselves. What wastheir destiny?Bug Many Cossacks were they irregular life intheAs troops law of customary units. theinternal allowed was elected, generally,hosts – resembled self-governance,preserved Don the be could their officers Hosts were formed(Greek-Albanian, Tatar, Bug), possibly, with purely symbolical role. warriors became ajustification forfurther expansion. Atthesame time several smaller Hetman both to better manage imperial borderlands and to advance imperial claims. Frontier of thetitle adopted Potemkin in 1790 while Hosts, Ekaterinoslav and Sea Black in the serve force was abandoned, nor wasits myth erased. Many Zaporozhiansformer were called to borders. thenew of 18 the military reorganization in caused mass 1775 emigration, while the initiatedsince themid the imperial narrative and imperial space (Frontier as a symbol). into incorporating identity the thepossibly empire, Frontierfor legacy regional population, suppress themyths theland old border,to about create beyond thethe new,loyal the to legitimize new conquests spontaneous resettlementshadto of constantmigration).a process Next,empire (Frontier as both inThe state had tothe colonize the new territorieseyes and to exercise some ofdegree of controlits over the the region conqueredand was theown importance two of other Frontier grew. aspects rapidly population and foreign powers, to 151 th Forthe numbers of these Hosts, see pp. 42-43 ofthe presentresearch. century state colonization of the serve alsoregion could as additionalan legitimization What was the initial status of the first generation of the reformed Cossacks? They In 1775the empire dissolvedthe However Zaporozhian neitherHost. its coercive In fact,these three aspects ofthe Frontier were deeply interconnected. For example, th century resembled aregular unit. Black Sea Cossacksthe were resettled to 60 151 CEU eTD Collection armies and military armies military standardization. and century the – maintenance separate of military people was outdatedin the era ofmass 19 the in sharpened problem The tested. be could marines and cavalry light infantry, stabilized and therewerenoconstant counterraids, high-quality and raids where light theCossacks. with Yet, even the recreation of theII in1796. Catherine hostsof death the after returning gradually were onémigrés thethe Transdanubians empire’s own terms did not solve all problems 17 the the of but main underpaid, problem or intodistantif expedition were sent revolt they Cossack hosts,the so chance of Cossack disloyalty decreased. The Cossacks still could symbolism by the empire.Also, the imperial officials closelymore controlledthe new unsettled lands. These hosts probably tothecontributed exploitation the of Frontier the Ottomans in 1787-1791. They were a proven tool for the military colonization of the Military Military Council. The Military Council itself soon ceased toexist. appointed by the Tsar controlled all spheresfrom theof Cossack life accordingly imperial to laws. The Ataman was the list Chancellery This Host. Sea Black the for of officials theimperial appointed of proposedconsisting candidates rather than elected by the Ekaterinoslav Host, disbanded in the 1796. disbanded Host, Ekaterinoslav Kuban’ in 1792, where they continued to serve alongside the part of the former 152 cossackdom] edited by Valerii Smolii (Kyiv, 2009), 2:338-339. in empires],” Turkish and Russian of the 153 Malenko, Olena Bachyns’ka, “Kozatsvo v systemakh Rosiis’koi i Turets’koi imperii [the cossackdom in the systems the in cossackdom [the imperii Turets’koi i Rosiis’koi systemakh v “Kozatsvo Bachyns’ka, Olena th –early 18 First, the quality military of the Cossack units wasdeteriorating. Frontier The What did the empire achieve with these hosts? The Cossacks served in the war with On February19 1801Paul’s I (1796-1801) decree established Military Chancellery Pivdennoukrains’ke kozatstvo. th centuries, shifting loyalties of the borderlandpopulation, was solved. Even Istoriia Ukrains’koho Kozatstva Ukrains’koho Istoriia 152 61 [The history of the Ukrainian of the [The history 153 th CEU eTD Collection easy. Settling Cossacks in the regions, where they will be needed, where they whereeasy. in beneeded, face wherewill Cossacks they they the regions, Settling will Cossack’sproblems. Thesolution the ofthe first problem, capabilities, wasrather military during the late 18th – earlycompact Cossack communities19th outside the Russian Empire, which troubledcenturies, the government so the state could concentrate on the first two imperial order to the region rather difficult. rather region the to order imperial hosts faced this problem as well. marginalhad disbanded almost immediately elements and tobe its creation. after Other the An Host. Budzhak ambitious toproject attract migrants a quickly became magnet for complained about the Cossack low discipline. This set ofproblems causedthe dissolution of workers.lost Local officials about the complained Cossack crimes. Military commanders it because complained nobility local the Naturally, semi-regular. already were units Cossack criminals, deserters – many people still believed in the Cossack freedom, even if the 156 cossackdom age of the Ukrainian history], (Odessa: Astroprint, 2009), 152. 155 attractedrunaway peasants, who attempted to become Cossacks. sought status, Cossack butresisted active service. migrate toRussiainstead. The Greek-Albanian Host acted similarly, its members when were rather unwilling participateto inthe actual andin warfare 1820s many the to preferred mentioned how Transdanubians, receiving payment from the Ottomans for military service, privileges yetnot wishing to serve are countless aswell. In subchapterthe previous I to recruitment, labor services, and tax-payment. Examplesand led manyof peoplethe tojoin CossackCossacks hosts in vain hopes of “being free”wishing not– being subject to have 154 Malenko, Olena Bachyns’ka, Olena Shyian, The liquidation of the Transdanubian Sich in 1828 solvedthe problem ofthe Second, theSecond, Frontier with(supported myth persisted rather practical considerations) Grets’ke (Albans’ke) Kozats’ke Viis’ko. Kozats’ke (Albans’ke) Grets’ke Pivdennoukrains’ke kozatstvo. Kozatstvov pisliakozats’kudobu ukrains’koi istorii 156 In this sense, the Frontier as a symbol made bringing 62 154 This myth of a free Frontier life also [the cossacks of the after- the of cossacks [the 155 Runaway serfs, Runaway CEU eTD Collection new frontiers of the empire -Bessarabia andthe Caucasus. its tradition shifted with it. Cossacks, whose legacy canarmy be tracedofficers to Zaporizhia to the Cossack lived units. in the The Frontier in New Russiahimself. to Inorder control Azov and Danube Hosts, thegovernment included also regulardid not close, it shifted, yet Ministry could not solve were forwarded to the Senate, which worked closely with the Tsar reported while the tothe Military The questions questions. governor Ministry, general military in both and civilian New Russian general-governor the directly subordinatedto empire stillthem needed after all. Cossack hosts in Russia, yet they existed till the Era of Great Reforms – it seems that the 158 planning to give the Cossacks viable self-sustaining economy. self-sustaining viable Cossacks give the to planning transferring state peasants and non-privileged other social into groups the cossackdom, Host consisted of 8748 people. However, the state bolstered the numbers of these hosts by 1840s the Danubians 8213counted persons including families.In the the sameperiod, Azov the Russian advance inthe SeaofAzov preventing Ottomansupportthe of the Caucasian mountaineers andmaking the Caucasus a bit easier.Cossacks were in actually persistentparticipating conflicts. the Caucasus These two hostsBessarabia, where theywere protected the south-western border of the empire, whilenot the Azov big – by the émigrésformer the AzovandDanubian Hosts The were formed. Danubians weresettled in useful both in border patrol and supportive policing roles. Thus, in 1828-1832from the persistent frontier warfare and not battles with the European armies, where they will be 157 Ibid, 149. Ibid, Bachynska, The solution of the second problem was ingenious, indeed. The Don Statute of According imperialto the system ofcommand, Azov and Danubian units were Kozatstvo vpisliakozats’ku dobu ukrains’koi istorii, 63 145-148 . 158 These werethe smallest 157 They patrolled They CEU eTD Collection mass-armies. century. This means, however, that thestateneeded the frontier warriors even in the era of empire would recognize Cossack theestate without preceding reforms of the late 18 first suppressed and only later restored between theservice in expeditions andhomeservice. cossackdom in NewThe problem of possibleRussia. banditry after the demobilization was solvedby the rotation system Doubtful thatproblem of therunaways was partially solved by making the Cossacksbolstered Cossack morale, a but also helped to solve problems with borderland irregulars. The 16 the since recognition such included the Afterlegally Cossackintoits all, structure. the social struggled for Cossacks integrate the Cossacks into estates, other thethe empire adopted Frontier language itself and borderland tradition in order to defend its own borders. After the 18 hadreal control over the Cossacks. From the Frontier position, Russia exploited existing this a concession from the empire? From the state-building point ofview, the empire already other hand,it createdthe Cossack estate –frontierwarriors got theircorporate identity. Was were appointed, andtheir internal life wasbrought in accordance with imperial laws. On the administration. The Cossacks were already controlled by the state officials, their Atamans however, resultedmainly from current Hosts’size andnot its previous traditions. differences.These differences, minor with only status andunifiedlegislation unified series, 26 May 1835, no. 8163, 10:453-536. 1835 159 “Polozhenie ob upravlenii Voiska Donskogo [The statute of the Don Host command],” in 159 Naturally,it communities. borderland than powerful more was Naturally,state the In general, irregular Cossack units were still rathercost-efficient. First, Cossacks had On the one hand, this Statute did not change much in regards of host’s was applied to almost all others Cossack units. Different hosts of the empire got th century. However, this change of imperial policies not only 64 closed th century century to attempts military military estate. PSZRI , 2nd th CEU eTD Collection socialist projectsin or to attempts construct nation states. once empirethe fell,itwas hardtofind the for Cossacks either aplace in revolutionary corporate identity was created and this identity loyalwas until the fall the of empire. Yet, till the eraGreat of Reforms and werefinally indisbanded However, the 1860s. the separate was rather questionable. Only the Azov, even Cossack for military Danubian, if long-timeneed service, in the military the Southern regionunits and Black Sea hosts for exchange in continued benefits certain receive to hoped who themselves, Cossacks hand, toother the exist presencethesame atinternal timemaintaining stability the on and, Cossack in the regions, coincidence of interests of, on the one hand, the state, which wanted to increase the militarythe to due only possible became centuries the 19th of first quarter – the of 18th quarter (civilian and military) supervision. benefited from theeaseestate rights could thein same region.At social tensions theempire time, the military service unitsof didthe not demandunruly much time andFrontier funds. Evenopposed more, thetheelements, possibilitystate but ofwas at leastincluded placed temporalgradually advance the Russian line of settlements in the intoCaucasus, their myth nolonger theunder state ideology.double TheThey were cheap and theyre-creation could be used in support and police functions, they could of the Cossack the experience of borderlandwarfare, knew the territory, andcould sustain themselves. The emergence of different Cossack hosts in the New Russian region during the last the during region New Russian in the hosts Cossack different of emergence The 65 CEU eTD Collection concessions for the Cossacks, there wasa place for negotiation. Werethe Cossacks always and Frontier. Wasidentity. the imperial1920s, when Cossack policyFrontier reopened (if it wasclose) in 1941, 1918, especially1991 – speaking the early of regions claimed the that to deny always is hard it And Asia. in Central nomads with problems had government their separate, centralising? not only social, but also a politicalNo, state officials made Officially, the partial. Europeanonly was state the into integration Cossacks’ historiography. Ukrainian emerging frontier closed in 1800,state plans on the empire’s own terms. Indecreased, the local borderlandtradition contrast, was initially andsuppressed later integratedinto the Cossackdom became a mythbrought to the previouslyfor independent regions,the the number of nomadic raids greatly dominance in Field was atypical Frontier.In the 18 the region and, in a certainenrichedthe existing picture with nuances,some but alsoraised more questions. sense, the martyrs).became Still,sinceongoing research isan any only process, this not project Frontier they historiography national later in the if (even closed.lacked previously they which recognition Imperialborderland warriors became finally incorporated into imperial the society,gaining the law was empire instead generic of subjugation of borderlandsthe by thecenter; ithow the showed the– itshowed flexibility imperial the it showed of therule; useofthe Frontier by the towards the Cossack communities in the Pontic region. I suppose that this project is crucial The second question, which this research raised, is the interplay between the state I wonder, if the Frontier can be actually closed? In the early modern times Wild In this researchI an demonstrated on episode the Russian state its policy changing Conclusions th and 19 and 66 160 th centuries Russian the empire achieved yet even in the 20 th century century the Soviet CEU eTD Collection the 16 since sought actually which they a recognition, – status of their legal recognition got region in 1775 with the dissolution of the old host. Yet, only sixtyIronically, years later the Cossacks majority in this of Cossack studiesregional historical traditions, contemporary endscommemoration practices and myth-making. the Cossack era in the South Ukrainian region suitable myths resources,and if the state was toextractable them. itself. Still, the Frontier couldalso help the empire to expandits borders by providing both itgreat required resources controlto andprotect, while usually providing little resources sabotaging it. Was theFrontierstate-building? an in obstacle always.In some the Not cases Russian Empire andparticipated in its state-building process instead ofignoring or for legalfor status andregular pay.In the 19 striving to be independent? No, in the 16 in the No, independent? be to striving 160 McNeill, th century. Another possibility for further research is the place of the Cossacks in national and Europe's Steppe Frontier. Steppe Europe's th century they wanted to serve the Crown in return th 67 century they became one of estates of the CEU eTD Collection PSZRI term toarrive toRussia lowrank for military, peasants others, and who left the country],” in chinam, krest’ianam i prochim eshche na odin god [On the oneyear prolongation theof “O prodolzhenii sroka dlia iavki vsem otluchivshimsia za granitsu voinskim nizhnim January 1775,no. 17774, 24:312. Tavriia to the War Collegiumin settled theregiment Greek of [Ontransfer batallionom Grecheskim onogo imenovanii and naming it as a Greek batallion],”“O priniatii poselennogo v Tavrii Grecheskogo polkain vvedomstvo Voennoi kollegii,i o PSZRI the sea shoretothe menserving in Greek regiment and their status military of colonists]," in po beregu moria, i o bytii im voennymi poselianamiBalaklavy [On granting okolo land lezhashchimi near Balaklavazemliami, polku on vGrecheskom sluzhashchikh nadelenii “O PSZRI naming of the host formedfrom the Transdanubian Zaporozhians the [on as Ust'-Dunaiskoe],” Ust'-Dunaiskim in Zaporozhtsev, iz Zadunaiskikh formiruemogo voiska imenovanii “O 104. granting them special privileges],”and Enikop and Kerch in in cities settle to his command under navy in the served having osobykh vygod[Personal decree. Given to General Count Orlov. On permission for Greeks predvoditel'stvom ego Grekam poselit'sia v gorodakh Kerchi i Enikolp spredostavleniem im “Imennyi. Dannyi Generalu Grafu Orlovu. O dozvolenii sluzhivshim vo flote pod romanization tables. antiquitieshistory and society] the Russian Empire] Common abbreviations in this project are: , 1st series, 27April no.1780, 15006, 20:932. , 1st series, 29October 1797, no. 18227, 24:785. , 1st series, 20February 1807, no. 22465, 29:1024. Note Note on transliteration:titles for thein I the Library Cyrillic used of Congress ZOOIID – of Laws Collected [Complete Imperii Rossiiskoi Zakonov Sobranie Polnoe – PSZRI Zapiski Odesskogo obshchestva istorii i drevnostei istorii obshchestva Odesskogo Zapiski Published Sources PSZRI Bibliography , 1stseries, March 28 1775, no. 14284, 20:101- 68 [The notes of Odessa PSZRI , 1st series, 30 series, 1st , CEU eTD Collection Zaporizhia history: Nikopol].” Karelin, Ioann. “Materialy dlia istorii Zaporozh’ia: Nikopol’ [The materials on the of of the Zaporozhian Cossacks after the Sich destruction].” history the [On Sechi unichtozheniia posle kazakov zapozozhskikh istorii A. “K P. Ivanov, [The Works by Derzhavin with explanational remarks by Ia. Grot]. Saint Petersburg, 1870. Grot, Iakov, comp., 1780/Abaza_V_N/text1.htm. http://www.vostlit.info/Texts/Dokumenty/Ukraine/XVIII/1760- 2012. June 04 Accessed excerption V.from N.Abaza’s memoirs with the description of the Zaporozhian Sich]. VasiliiAbaza, N. Tverof Gavriil].” poruchik Tekelli’s most humble report to the Empressunichtozhenii Catherine Zaporozhskoi II.Sechi. Soobshchil ReportedGavriil, arhiepiskop by Tverskoiarchbishop [General- “Vsepoddaneishee donesenie imperatritse Ekaterine II general-poruchik Tekeliia, ob PSZRI “Polozhenie ob upravlenii Voiska Donskogo[The statute of the Don Host command],” in PSZRI, destruction ofthe and Zaporozhian Sich attachingit tothe New Russian in province],” the [On gubernii kNovorossiiskoi onoi iprichislenii sechi Zaporozhskoi unichtozhenii “Ob series,3 August 1775, no. 17972, 24:617-618. dissolution[On the sostavlennogo i Albantsev Grekov iz divisiona, Grecheskogo unichtozhenii “Ob of the Greek divison, formed from the Greeks and Albanians],” in country without in country permit],” without [On zagranitsuthe otluchivshikhsia the call low-rank to military and who peasants, the left “O vyzove voinskikh nizhnikh chinov, krest’ian i pospolityh liudei samovol’no 22:1069. at former Ukrainian Lineof Ekaterinislav totheprovince Cossack service],” in Ekaterinoslavskoi gubernii, vkazach’iu sluzhbu [On the transferone-yard of peasnts, living v linii Ukrainskoi byvshei po poselennykh odnodvortsev, obrashchenii “Ob host from coachmen burghers],”and in “O sostavlenii kazach’egovoiskaiz iamshchikov i meshchan [On the creation Cossakof 20:855. 14901, no. 1779, August revision],” revision],” in “Ob uchinenii vo vseiimperii novoi revizii [On the organization of newthe all-imperial 22:863. 16552, no. July 1787, 3 series, creation of one infantrycreation of one Greek regiment Host],” fromtheAlbanian in the [On voiska izAlbanskogo polka Grecheskogo pekhotnogo odnogo “O sformirovanii , 2nd series, 26 May 1835, no. 8163, 10:453-536. 1 st series,August3 1775, no. 14353, 20:190-193. PSZRI ZOOIID Otryvok iz memuarov V. N. Abazy s opisaniem Zaporozhskoi Sechi , 1st series, 16 November 1781, no. 15278, 21:304-306. 15278, no. 1781, November 16 series, , 1st Sochinenia Derzhavinas ob’’iasnitel’nymu primechaniyami Ia. Grota 3(1853): 587-588. PSZRI ZOOID , 1st , series,1st 5 May no.1779, 14870, 20:817. 6 (1867): 523-538. (1867): 6 PSZRI 69 , series,1st 20 April 1788,no. 16647, ZOOIID 25 (1904): 20-40. PSZRI , 1st series, 3 series, 1st , PSZRI PSZRI , 1st , , 1st [an CEU eTD Collection Autocracy in Early Modern Europe Brian. Downing, Rehional’na istoriiaUkrainy Chornovol, Ihor. “Teoriia komparatyvnyhfrontyriv [the theory of comparative frontiers].” Chornovol, Ihor. “Frontyry Rosii [the Frontiers of Russia].” steppe frontier]. Kyiv, 2011. Viktor. Brekhunenko, Boiko, Oleksandr. Frontier, 1700-1860. Thomas. Barrett, Odessa: MP Hermes, 1994. Bachyns’kyi, Anatolii. after-cossackdom age of the Ukrainian history]. Odessa: Astroprint, 2009. Bachyns’ka, Olena. 2012. http://www.cossackdom.com/articles/b/bachinska_bugvoisko.htm. Bachyns’ka, Olena. Forces theof first half of the 18 Apanovych,Olena. 1998. KulturaPodniprovia Pysaria IvanaAbrosimova, Svitlana, andHloby Mohul’ova, Svitlana. “Zymivnyk[Winter Ostann’oho Viis’kovoho Abode of the Last Host Arkhiv Russkii Scribe Vasil’chikov].” A.A. by Collected Papers. Potemkin’s A. G. theprince Ivan [From Vasil’chikov Hloba].”A. A. Soobshchil Potemkina-Tavricheskogo. A. G. kniazia “Iz bumag A.A. Vasil’chikov, In AccessedJune 04 2012.http://gorod.dp.ua/history/doc/korzha_opovid.pdf. Mihailovskoe village Nikity Leont’evicha Korzha].Odessa, 1842. Oral Story of theEkaterinoslavsckoi Former Gubernii iuezda, sela Mihailovskogo, Nikity Leont’evicha Zaporozhian, Korzha Rozanov, Gavriil, comp., inhabitant of EkaterinoslavHistorical Work about Little Russia and Little Russians]. Moscow, 1846. Governorate and Uezd, Müller, Gerhard Friedrich. andG. A. Potemkin. Personal Correspondence].” Moscow: Nauka, 1997. Lopatin, Viacheslav, comp. [The Russian Archive] 9 (1879): 19-27. (1879): 9 Archive] Russian [The The military revolution and political change: Origins of Democracy and At The Edge Of Empire: The TerekCossacks And The North Caucasus Istoriia Ukrainy Istoriia Kozatstvov pisliakozats’ku dobu ukrains’koiistorii Buz’ke Kozats’ke Viis’ko Kozats’ke Buz’ke Zbroini syly Ukrainy pershoi polovyny XVIIIst. pershoi polovyny sylyUkrainy Zbroini [History and Culture of the Dniper Region]. 30-47. Dnipropetrovs’k, 30-47. Region]. Dniper the of Culture and [History Oxford: Westview Press, 1999. Kozaky na stepovomu kordoni Ievropy SichZadunais’ka. 1775-1828 Istoricheskie Sochineniia oMalorossii i Malorossiianakh Ekaterinai G. Potemkin.II A. Lichnaya perepiska [Regional History of Ukraine] 3 (2009): 41-66. Ustnoe povestvovanie byvshegozaporozhtsa, zhytelia th century]. Kyiv,1969. Secondary Literature [the history of Ukraine]. Kyiv: Akademiia, 1999. . Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992. Press, University Princeton . Princeton: 70 [The Bug Cossack Host]. Accessed 04 June 04 Accessed Host]. Cossack Bug [The [the Transdanubian Sich. 1775-1828]. Sich. Transdanubian [the Krytyka [theCossacks in theEurope’s 6(2007), 17-21. [the cossacks of the [Ukrainian Armed [Catherine II Istoriia ta Istoriia [The [The CEU eTD Collection Kyiv: Znannia-Press, 2006. Znannia-Press, Kyiv: Lanovyk, Bohdan, and Lazarovych, Mykola. Lazarovych, and Bohdan, Lanovyk, the Russian Empire]. Moscow: Novoe Literaturnoe Obozrenie, 2012. Hetmanate, 1760s-1830s Kohut, Zenon E. 1979. Press, Kusko, Andrey, and Taki, Viktor. Kiraly, B. K.,and Rothenberg, G.E.,ed. 1800 Khodarkovsky Kappeler, Andreas. “The Russian Southern andEastern Frontiersfrom the 15 2012. http://www.ukrterra.com.ua/developments/history/cossacks/kajuk_kalnysh.htm. destruction of the Zaporozhian Sich theand destiny P. Kalnyshevskii].of AccessedJune 04, Kaiuk, Svitlana. Kaiuk, Candidate of Historical Sciences diss., Dnipropetrovsk National (1775-1828)].” University, Sich 1999. Transdanubian [the rr.) (1775-1828 Sich “Zadunais’ka Svitlana. Kaiuk, Cossacks]. Saint Petersburg: Tipografiia I. N. Skorokhodova, 1892. Centuries.” Iavornyts’kyi, Dmytro. Iavornyts’kyi, Krytyka,2006. Accessed 04 June 2012.http://history.franko.lviv.ua/yak_content.htm. on thehistory of Ukraine sincetheancient times tillthe end of the18 Eliseeva, Ol’ga. on civil affairs]. Geneva, 1881. Drahomanov, Mykhailo. Iakovenko, Nataliia. 77-95. Istoryko-kraieznavchi [The doslidzhennia tradytsii history istoriografichnykh of Nicopol’ at the crossroadsna perekhresti of historiographicalNikopolia traditions].” “Istoriia Vladyslav. Hrybovs’kyi, 1909. Hrushevskyi, Mykhailo. 1992. Dumka, Naukova Kyiv: Hrushevskyi, Mykhailo. ModernEurope. Ertman,Thomas. . Bloomington–Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 2002. Press, University Indiana Bloomington–Indianapolis: . Ab- , Michael. ȱ mper Grigorii Potemkin Grigorii New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997. Russian Centralism Ukrainianand Autonomy: Imperial Absorption of the Birth ofLeviathan. Building States and Regimes inMedieval and Early Znyshchennia Zaporiz’koi Sichi idolia P. Kalnyshevs’koho Narys istorii Ukrainy z naidavnishykh chasiv do kintsia XVIII st. XVIII kintsia do chasiv znaidavnishykh Ukrainy istorii Narys ɿ o 1 (2003): 47-64. . Ukrainian Research Institute of Harvard University, 1989. University, Harvard of Institute Research Ukrainian . Russia’s steppe frontier. The makingcolonial of a empire, 1500- Istoriia zaporozhskikh kazakov Novi ukrains’ki pisni pro gromads’ki spravy Ilustrovana istoriia Ukrainy Istoriia Ukrainy-Rusy [Grigorii Potemkin]. Moscow: Molodaia gvardiia, 2005. Bessarabiia v sostave Rossiiskoi Imperii Rossiiskoi v sostave Bessarabiia [Prydniprov’ia: historical-regional strudies], 8 (2010): 8 strudies], historical-regional [Prydniprov’ia: War and Society. 71 [the history [thehistory ofUkraine-Rus]. Kyiv-Lviv, Istoriia Ukrainy [the illustrated history [the illustrated Ukraine]. of [the history the Zaporozhianof New York: ColoradoUniversity [the history of Ukraine]. [new Ukrainian songs Ukrainian [new th century]. Kyiv: [Bessarabia in Prydniprov’ia: th to the 18 the to [essay [The th CEU eTD Collection Kyiv: Kyievo-Mohylians'ka Akademiia, 2009. Akademiia, Kyievo-Mohylians'ka Kyiv: 1735-1739]. War Russian-Turkish and cossackdom Left-Bank Blade: the on Rust [The Repan, Oleh. 1994. Raeff, Mark. Raeff, Mark. 18 the of [Zaporizhia Nataliia. Polons’ka-Vasylenko, Mohylians'ka Akademiia, 2008. Mil’chev, Volodymyr. Mil’chev, 1964. Mytsyk, Iurii, and Bazhan, Oleh. Bazhan, and Iurii, Mytsyk, 2007. Tandem-U, rr. McNeill,H. William 1760. Mann, Michael. June 04, 2012. http://www.cossackdom.com/articles/m/malenko_pivdenkozak.htm. political plans of the Russian Empire in the last stolit’ XVIII-XIX chverti vostannii quarterImperii of the 18 Liudmyla. Malenko, 2001. Press, Lieven, Dominic. Expansion and Containment LeDonne, John P. 2004. Press, University LeDonne, John P. 2012. http://www.hist.ceu.hu/readers/miller_ma/ledonne.pdf. LeDonne, John P. http://www.cossackdom.com/book/bookkordon.html. Zaporizhia: Tandem-U, 2001. Accessed June 04 2012. [the great Frontier Europe of as factor of a emergence Ukrainianof the cossackdom]. Serhii. Lepyavko, 1996. Chernihiv, Ukraine]. Lepyavko, Serhii. Lepyavko, [Zaporozhians on the Military Frontier of Austrian Empire 1785 –1790].Zaporizhzhia: Cambidge: Cambridge University Press, 1986. Catherine the Great Irzha na lezi: livoberezhne kozatstvo i Rosiis’ko-Turets’ka viina 1735-1739 rr viina 1735-1739 kozatstvo i Rosiis’ko-Turets’ka lezi:livoberezhne Irzha na Political Ideas and Institutions in Imperial Russia inImperial Institutions and Ideas Political The Sources of Social Power: AHistory of Power fromthe Beginning to AD Empire: The The RivalsRussian Empire Empire: and Its The Russian Empire and the World 1700-1917. The Geopolitics of Kozats’ki viiny XVI st. v Ukraini XVIst. viiny Kozats’ki Velykyi Kordon Ievropy iak faktor stanovlennia ukrainskoho kozatstva The Grand Strategy of the Russian Empire 1650-1831. Core Area and Frontier in Historical Perspective inHistorical Frontier Areaand Core th Europe's Steppe Frontier century and its legacy]. Munich, 1965. Munich, its legacy]. and century Zaporozhtsi na Viis’kovomu kordoni Avstriis’koi imperii 1785-1790 Pivdennoukrains’ke kozatstvo v politychnykh planakh Rosiis’koi . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997. Press, University Oxford . Oxford: . London: Macmillan, 1972. Macmillan, London: . Istoriia Ukrainy Zaporizhzhia XVIIIstolittia ta ioho spadshchyna [The cossackdom of the southern Ukraine in the 72 . Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, [the history [theKyievo- of Ukraine]. Kyiv: history [the Cossack wars of 16 the . New. Haven: Yale University . Boulder: Westview Press, Westview . Boulder: th -19 th centuries]. Accessed . Accessed 04 June Accessed . Oxford: Oxford th century century in . CEU eTD Collection Tilly, Charles. Tilly, 1994. York, Starr, Frederick S., ed. 2009. Kyiv, cossackdom]. Smolii, Valerii, ed. Valerii, Smolii, 1950. Sm Zaporoz’koho Originally published in Skal’kovskii, Apollon. 1994. Sich: Dniprotetrovsk, Host]. Zaporozhian the Last or Sich New the of History Skal’kovskii, Apollon. Accessed 04June 2012.http://www.cossackdom.com/articles/s/shiyan_ktvoisko.htm. Roman. Shyian, Accessed 04June 2012.http://www.cossackdom.com/articles/s/shiyan_katervoisko.htm. Roman. Shyian, grekvoisko.htm. http://www.cossackdom.com/articles/s/shiyan_ 04 June 2012. Accessed Host]. Roman. Shyian, http://www.cossackdom.com/articles/s/shiyan_chernomvoisko.htm. 04 June 2012. Shyian, Roman. Shyian, Cossack hosts: The chronicle theof guard Cossack units]. Saint Petersburg, 1912. [Ivan Suhyna –unknown oftheAtaman BlackSeaHost].” viis’ka chornomors’koho otaman koshovyi nevidomyi – “Ivan Suhyna Ihor. Sapozhnykov, 5812-5818. 2001. Science, behavioral sciences Rieber, Alfred 2004. J.Press, “Frontiers by Alexei Miller and Alfred J. Rieber. 177-208. Budapest: Central European University in History.” In Shenk, Vladimir, ed. Vladimir, Shenk, 5(2000):259-266. Ukraine] Rieber, Alfred J.“The Comparative Ecology of Complex Frontiers.” In Approach.” 5ɿ Transdanubian Host].” In the of beginnings the and 1771-1774 of Revolts [Zaporozhian Kosha Zadunais’koho Riabinin-Skliarevs’kyi, Oleksandr. “Zaporiz’ki Bunty 1771-1774 r. i Pochatok eber, Alfred J. “Chang ɿ th, Henry Nash. Henry th, Ab- [The History of the New Sich or the Last Zaporozhian Host]. Odessa: 1846. Coercion, Capital and European States ȱ Kryms’ko-Tatars’ke Kozats’ke Viis’ko Viis’koKozats’ke Katerynoslavs’ke Grets’ke (Albans’ke) Kozats’ke Viis’ko Chornomors’ke Kozats’ke Viis’ko mper Istoriia Ukrains’koho Kozatstva , edited by N. J. Smelser and P. B. Baltes. Vol. 9. New York: Elsevier 9ɿ ɿ o rg The Legacy Historyof in Russia and the New States of Eurasia Kazach’i voiska: khroniki gvardeiskikh kazach’ikh chastei 1 (2003): 23-46. Istoriia Novoi Sichi abo ostann’ohoKosha Zaporoz’koho ɿ Naukovyi Zbirnyk ULN Zbirnyk Naukovyi n Land. The Amer ɿ ng Concepts and Construct ɿ 73 can West asSymbol and the Myth International encyclopedia of the social and Istoriia Novoi Sichi abo ostann’ohoKosha [Proceedings of ULN]. 27 (1927): 65-83. (1927): 27 ULN]. of [Proceedings [The Black Sea Cossack Host]. Accessed [The Ekaterinoslav Host]. Ekaterinoslav [The Cossack [The history [The history of the Ukrainian . Cambridge: Blackwell,1992. [The Crimean TatarCossack Host]. [The Greek-Albanian Cossack ɿ onsof Front Pivdenna Ukraina Pivdenna ɿ ers: A Comparat Imperial rule, Imperial [The Southern [The . New York, edited . New [the [The ɿ ve CEU eTD Collection Thirdof the 19 Eagle… The Russian Literature and State Ideology in the Last Third of the 18th – First Ideologiiav Poslednei Treti XVIII –Pervoi Treti XIX veka Zorin, Andrey. 2007. Kharkiv, century]. 18th in the Empire Russian Imperii Rosiis’koi Yatsenko 265-281. Webb, Walter P.“H von Hagen, Mark. “Does Ukraine Have aHistory?” h/22994-h.htm. Company, 1921. Accessed 04 June 2012. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/22994/22994- Turner, Frederick Jackson. Frederick Turner, , Vladyslav. th KormiaDvuglavogo Orla… Russkaia Literatura i Gosudarstvennaia century]. Moscow: Novoe Literaturnoe Obozrenie, 2004. [the Integration of Ukrainian intoCossacks theSocial Structure of the ɿ Integratsiia ukrains’koho kozatstva sotsial’noido strucktury story story H as The Frontier in American History American in Frontier The ɿ gh Adventure.” 74 The Amer The Slavic Review Slavic [Feeding the Two-Headed the [Feeding ɿ can H can . New York: Henry Holt and ɿ stor 3 (1995): 658-673. (1995): 3 ɿ cal Rev ɿ ew 2 (1959):2