The Relations of the Crimean Khanate with the Ukrainian Cossacks, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Muscovy During the Reign of Khan Islam Giray III (1644-1654)
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
The Relations of the Crimean Khanate with the Ukrainian Cossacks, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Muscovy during the Reign of Khan Islam Giray III (1644-1654) by Sait Ocakli A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations University of Toronto © Copyright by Sait Ocakli 2017 The Relations of the Crimean Khanate with the Ukrainian Cossacks, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Muscovy during the Reign of Khan Islam Giray III (1644-1654) Sait Ocakli Doctor of Philosophy Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations University of Toronto 2017 Abstract This dissertation analyzes the relations of the Crimean Khanate with the Ukrainian Cossacks, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Muscovy during the reign of Khan Islam Giray III (1644 - 1654). Islam Giray’s reign coincided with some of the most turbulent years of the Crimean Khanate’s history. Shortly after his accession to the throne in summer 1644, a quarrel between his nobles and palace guards during the return from a Circassian campaign turned into an exhausting civil war between him and his nobility. The Khanate’s relations with its northern neighbours were also deteriorating as Warsaw and Moscow decided to take action against the attacks of the Tatars and stopped tribute/gifts payments to Crimea. Under these circumstances, the Cossack rebellion of 1648 against the Commonwealth under the leadership of Bohdan Xmel’nyc’kyj was a golden opportunity for Islam Giray to reassert his position as ruler in Crimea and strengthen the Khanate’s position in eastern European affairs. While the khan gave military support to the Ukrainian Cossacks throughout their war with the Commonwealth, he was never willing to allow the collapse of Warsaw’s authority over Ukraine. Instead he aimed to be a mediator between the Cossacks and the Commonwealth forcing them to agree to peace treaties ii that would reconcile their contending demands. Islam Giray also intended to ally with Warsaw and Xmel’nyc’kyj for the conquest and partition of Muscovy, acquiring the Volga patrimony of the Golden Horde, Kazan and Astrakhan, for the Khanate. However, as the Cossacks and the Commonwealth were overwhelmed by their mutual problems, they were uninterested in participating in an anti-Muscovite alliance. Eventually, a decisive blow to Islam Giray’s mediatory position and his anti-Muscovite schemes came as the Ukrainian Cossacks could not reach a settlement with Warsaw and decided to submit to Muscovy in 1654. Now, towards the end of his reign, the khan found himself at a crossroads between maintaining his alliance with the Ukrainian Cossacks and taking sides with the Commonwealth against the Ukrainian- Muscovite rapprochement. iii Acknowledgments First I would like to express my gratitude to my supervisor Professor Victor Ostapchuk for his role in my academic development during my graduate studies. Without his patience, guidance and support, I would have not been able to complete the doctoral program. His lectures and seminars greatly contributed to my development as a scholar. He also most generously allowed me to benefit from his collection of copies of manuscripts and archival materials. Professor Ostapchuk carefully read and substantially commented on the various drafts of my thesis for which I am truly indebted to him. However, I alone remain responsible for any remaining shortcomings in this doctoral dissertation. I am also grateful to Professor Frank Sysyn for serving on my thesis committee and sparing his precious time for my thesis drafts. He provided invaluable advice not only during the writing, but also during the research process. His vast knowledge, especially of Polish and Ukrainian history, has been very useful for this dissertation. I would like to thank Professor Paul R. Magocsi for agreeing to participate as the non-committee member in my dissertation defense and in the process providing me with valuable feedback on my thesis. I am also thankful to him for allowing me to attend his lectures on Ukrainian history during the coursework portion of my doctoral program. It was a privilege to have Professor Michael Khodarkovsky of Loyola University Chicago as the external appraiser. I owe special thanks to him for his constructive feedback on my dissertation in his written appraisal and his insightful comments and questions during the oral defense. I would like to thank the Late Professor Halil İnalcık, who encouraged me to turn my academic interests to the relations of the Crimean Khanate with its northern neighbours. He wanted to read my dissertation but passed away last year. May God bless him with a place in Paradise. My sincere appreciation goes to Professor Özer Ergenç, who made helpful suggestions and comments on my reading of Ottoman Turkish documents. iv Mrs. Anna Sousa have always been very approachable, helpful and friendly from the first day that I set foot in the Department of Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations. Her administrative support has played a pivotal role in the completion of my graduate studies. A great debt of thankfulness belongs to Maryna Kravets, who gave me valuable advice during the research and writing of my dissertation. Thanks to conversations I had with Maryna, I have been able to understand terms and phrases in Polish, Ukrainian and Russian historical texts. This dissertation has been made possible by the financial assistance of the University of Toronto, the Department of Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations and the Avie Bennett Award Program. I would especially like to thank Mr. Avie Bennett for setting up an award fund to support young researchers including me. I hope many other young researchers benefit his benevolent fund in future and express their gratitude to a beautiful hearted person such as him. I want to express my deepest gratitude to my parents for their endless support and confidence. While I was pursuing graduate studies away from Turkey, my mother and my father helped to keep my moral high. I regret for not being with them when my sister passed away. I always remember my beloved sister and miss her calling me “abi.” Last, but certainly not least, I am grateful to my wife, Nuray, and my son, Mehmet Berke, for their patience, confidence, encouragement and support throughout my studies. As a companion and fellow graduate student, Nuray endured many difficulties and took much responsibility, especially at the times that I had to fully concentrate on research and writing. And, Mehmet Berke had to grow up in a household where two graduate students had to finish their studies. v Table of Contents Abstract ii Acknowledgements iv Table of Contents vi List of Maps vii Note on Nomenclature and Terminology viii Abbreviations x Introduction 1 Chapter 1: The Reign of Islam Giray III before the Crimean Tatar-Ukrainian Cossack Rapprochement of 1648 20 1.1 Disorder in the Crimean Khanate 21 1.2 Relations with the Commonwealth 28 1.3 Relations with Muscovy 47 1.4 Conclusion 61 Chapter 2: Crimean Tatar Involvement in the War between the Ukrainian Cossacks and the Commonwealth (1648-1649) 63 2.1 Early Relations between Islam Giray III and Bohdan Xmel’nyc’kyj: Was the Khan an Ally or Suzerain of the Hetman? 64 2.2 The Campaigns of 1648 82 2.3 The Campaign of Summer 1649: The Battles of Zbaraž and Zboriv 92 2.4 The Commonwealth and Ukrainian Cossack Missions to the Ottoman Porte 117 2.5 Conclusion 139 Chapter 3: Ceasefire (September 1649-February 1651) 142 3.1 Arbitration between the Commonwealth and the Ukrainian Cossacks 143 3.2 Crimean Campaign Plans against Muscovy and the Don Cossacks 155 3.3 The Campaign against Moldavia in Summer 1650 180 3.4 Relations between Bohdan Xmel’nyc’kyj and the Ottoman Porte 186 3.5 Conclusion 203 Chapter 4: Crimean Tatar Involvement in the War between the Ukrainian Cossacks and the Commonwealth (June 1651-June 1654) 205 4.1 The Campaign of Summer 1651 and its Aftermath 206 4.2 The Battle of Žvanec’ and its Outcomes 234 4.3 Crimean Reaction to the Ukrainian-Muscovite Rapprochement at Perejaslav in 1654 244 4.4 Conclusion 272 Conclusion 275 Chronology 286 Glossary 293 Bibliography 297 vi List of Maps Map 1 The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and the Crimean Khanate c. 1648 319 Map 2 The Xmel’nyc’kyj Uprising c. 1648 320 vii Note on Nomenclature and Terminology The Crimean Khanate was the name of a vassal state of the Ottoman Empire ruled by the Giray dynasty (directly descended from Chinggis Khan) with not only internal autonomy, but its own military and even, to a great extent, own foreign policy. It combined sedentary and nomadic social and political life. The rulers of the Khanate considered the Crimean peninsula as the heartland of their state, though the steppes to the north belonged to the Khanate and part of the North Caucasus was in vassalage to it. This dissertation uses the Crimean Khanate, Crimea and Khanate interchangeably to denote the state ruled by the khans of the Giray dynasty. In the third quarter of the fifteenth century the Ottoman Empire took the Crimean Khanate under its protection, establishing direct rule over the southern coast of the peninsula and certain places along the Azov Sea, such as Azak and Taman. For the central authority of the Ottoman Empire, this dissertation uses the Ottoman Porte and more often simply the Porte. Crimean and Ottoman place names are given in their historical form (e.g., Akmescid for Simferopol’, Gözleve for Jevpatorija, Orkapı for Perekop, Azak for Azov, Özi for Očakiv, Akkerman for Bilhorod-Dnistrovs’kyj). On first occurrence in each chapter the modern forms of such place names are given in parentheses after their historical form.