CHAPTER THREE

IN THE SHADE OF ISTANBUL AND MOSCOW (1671–1783)

The Crimean role in the Ottoman-Polish war of 1672–1676 and in the following reconciliation

The Ottoman direct engagement in the Ukraine led predictably to a limitation of the Crimean zone of political influence. Even a khan like Adil Giray, regarded as the creature of the Köprülüs and detested in the Crimean society, tried to prevent the Porte’s meddling in his affairs and ultimately paid with his throne for this insubordination. His suc- cessor, Selim Giray, who was to rule with interruptions until 1704 (1671–78, 1684–91, 1692–99, 1702–04), turned out to be the Porte’s most loyal ally during its military confrontation with Christian Europe, but also he knew to struggle for the Crimean proper interests. In August 1672, the key Polish fortress of Kamieniec Podolski sur- rendered after a short siege. The Ottoman army, headed by Sultan Mehmed IV and commanded by Grand Vizier Ahmed Köprülü, was assisted by nearly all major vassals: the rulers of Wallachia and Mol- davia, the Crimean khan, Selim Giray, and the Cossack hetman, Petro Dorošenko. The Ottomans were also joined by the Lipka Tatars,525 who had settled in Lithuania in the 15th century and recently rioted against the Commonwealth, frustrated by the rise of anti-Muslim prejudices, symptomatic for the Counter-Reformation. After the fall of Kamieniec, the khan and an Ottoman commander, Kaplan Mustafa Pasha, proceeded as far as Lwów and forced the city to ransom its freedom while minor Tatar detachments raided the countryside. Nevertheless, the major Ottoman army slowed down its march, satisfied with the conquest and ready for negotiations. On 18 October 1672, an agreement was reached at Bučač (Pol. Buczacz), stipulating that the Polish king would become an Ottoman vassal by paying a yearly tribute to the sultan. The palatinate of Podolia, cen-

525 On the term, cf. n. 15 above. The Lipkas usually claimed descent from the fol- lowers of Tokhtamısh. The truth was more complicated as many of them arrived later and descended from other hordes. in the shade of istanbul and moscow (1671–1783) 187 tered in Kamieniec, was converted into a regular Ottoman province (eyalet), and the Cossack Ukraine was to remain under the Ottoman suzerainty, retaining its autonomy. Dorošenko’s position was secured by a clause, entered into the treaty, which forbade his pro-Polish rival, Xanenko, an entry to the Ukraine. The former governor of Očakiv, Khalil Pasha, who had earlier supported Dorošenko, became the first Ottoman beylerbeyi of Podolia. On 23 October, Sultan Mehmed IV confirmed the conditions of the Bučač agreement by issuing a solemn ‘ahdname in a military camp near Žvanec’.526 The Polish king was surely humiliated, but the Crimean khan did not fare much better. The southeastern provinces of the Commonwealth, which had long constituted a “reservoir” of spoils and slaves for the Tatar warriors, became the appendages of the Ottoman Empire, pro- tected now by the sultan against Tatar raids. The Cossacks, who had enjoyed the Crimean protection since 1648, now entered direct rela- tions with the Porte and shifted their allegiance from Baghchasaray to Istanbul. The devaluation of the prestige of the Crimean khan, whose ancestors had once independently negotiated sophisticated instru- ments of peace with the Polish kings, is best illustrated by the instru- ment, issued by Selim Giray on 23 October 1672 in the military camp near Žvanec’—the very same date and place as those of the sultan’s instrument—and delivered to the hands of the Polish commissioners who negotiated the peace with the Porte. The khan merely engaged that he would restrain his subjects from raiding the Polish Kingdom on the condition that he received the annual gifts, augmented by a recently promised supplement amounting to a thousand golden flo- rins. If the khan failed to restrain his troops, he was not to demand the gifts due for the year when such unauthorized raid occurred. Curi- ously, the de facto lowered status of the khan was compensated by his megalomaniac claim to rule over Siberia and the Bashkirs, reflected in the instrument’s intitulatio.527

526 On the campaign and pacification of 1672, see Kołodziejczyk,Podole pod panowa- niem tureckim, pp. 56–66; Mehmet İnbaşı, Ukrayna’da Osmanlılar. Kamaniçe Seferi ve Organizasyonu (1672) (Istanbul, 2004), pp. 135–182; Wagner, Wojna polsko-turecka w latach 1672–1676, pp. 228–292; on the Ottoman conquest and administration of Podolia, see Kołodziejczyk (ed.), The Ottoman Survey Register of Podolia (ca. 1681). Defter-i Mufassal-i Eyalet-i Kamaniçe (Cambridge, Mass., 2004), 2 pts.; the Polish and Ottoman instruments of the Treaty of Buczacz and the sultan’s ‘ahdname issued at Žvanec’ are published in idem, Ottoman-Polish Diplomatic Relations, pp. 494–514. 527 See Document 70.