scholarly journals “Send for His Great Sovereign Affairs...”: Embassy of D.М. Golitsyn to the Sublime Porte in 1701

2021 ◽  
pp. 194-206
Author(s):  
Tatyana Bazarova ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Ottoman Empire ◽  
Black Sea ◽  
18Th Century ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
The Black Sea ◽  
Peace Treaty ◽  
The Sublime ◽  
Russian State ◽  
Special Instruction ◽  
Early 18Th Century

Introduction. In January 1701, Prince D.M. Golitsyn was sent to Sultan Mustafa II for ratification of the Peace Treaty of Constantinople (July 3, 1700). He became the first Petrine diplomat sent to the Sublime Porte with the rank of grand ambassador. Methods and materials. The comprehensive study of archival sources (Russian State Archive of Ancient Acts), comparison of the data they contain with published materials make it possible to analyze the mission of Golitsyn in the context of the policy of Peter I towards the Ottoman Empire in the early 18th century. Analysis. Due to the hostilities by Narva, the dispatch of the embassy was delayed. The ambassador delivered the ratification of the peace treaty five months later than the agreed date. Golitsyn was the first Russian diplomat to wear a French dress during ceremonies at the Ottoman court. Besides, he not only followed the established ambassadorial custom, but also took into account the experience of his Western European colleagues. In addition to the ratification, Golitsyn had other tasks, the main of which was the conclusion of a trade agreement with the Sublime Porte. The conditions on which the ambassador was supposed to sign the agreement were fixed in a special instruction. The analysis of that instruction and reports of the ambassador showed that for Peter I the priority was not the development of mutually beneficial trade with the Ottoman Empire, but the opportunity to withdraw his fleet from the Azov to the Black Sea. Delivery of goods by Turkish ships or by dry route was considered only as an addition to the Russian Black Sea shipping. The conditions set in the instruction did not give to Golitsyn the opportunity to negotiate with the Sublime Porte, which categorically prohibited the entry of European ships into the Black Sea. Results. The sending of a grand ambassador by the tsar to the Ottoman sultan marked the transition of relations between the two states to a new level. Besides, a precedent was created for the reception of high-ranking Peter’s diplomats by the Sublime Porte.

scholarly journals THE PROBLEM OF ANNUAL PAYMENTS TO THE CRIMEAN KHANATE DURING THE RUSSIAN-TURKISH NEGOTIATIONS IN THE FIRST QUARTER OF THE 18TH CENTURY

2021 ◽  
Vol 73 (4) ◽  
pp. 183-191
Author(s):  
Tatiana A. Bazarova ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Ottoman Empire ◽  
18Th Century ◽  
Peace Treaty ◽  
Peace Agreements ◽  
The Sublime ◽  
Key Issues

Тhe paper considers diplomatic struggle around fixing in the Russian-Turkish agreements the refusal of annual payments to the Crimean Khan. This problem was one of the key issues in Russia’s relations with the Ottoman Empire and the Crimean Khanate during the Petrine era. The participation of Crimean diplomacy in the discussion of the problem at the Russian-Turkish peace talks remains poorly studied in Russian historiography. The Treaty of Constantinople (1700) secured the abolition of annual payments to the Crimean Khanate. However, the failure of the Prut campaign and non-fulfilment of Russian-Turkish peace agreements obligations by the tsar led to the renewal of the demand for annual payments. In 1711 and 1712, during negotiations with Russian ambassadors, the Ottomans did not insist on including to the peace treaty a clause on payments to the Crimean Khan and were content with oral promises. A difficult diplomatic struggle on the “Crimean dacha” unfolded at the peace talks in 1713, when Kaplan I Giray joined the active discussion of the problem. The clause on Crimean payments (without declaring direct obligations) was included in the text of the Adrianople (1713) and Constantinople (1720) treaties. By supporting the “khan’s claims” at the Russian-Turkish peace talks, the Sublime Porte demonstrated the readiness to protect the interests of its vassal. Peter I regarded the return of the clause about the “Crimean dacha” as a blow to Russia’s international prestige.

International and Domestic Maritime Trade in the Ottoman Empire during the 18th Century

1992 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 189-206 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Panzac
Keyword(s):  
Ottoman Empire ◽  
Red Sea ◽  
Black Sea ◽  
Major Part ◽  
18Th Century ◽  
Eastern Mediterranean ◽  
Decisive Role ◽  
Western Mediterranean ◽  
The Black Sea ◽  
Old World

A glance at a map shows what an important role the sea played in the vast empire of the Ottomans in the 18th century, linking as it did the three continents of Europe, Asia, and Africa that made up the Old World. The Ottoman Empire dominated not only the eastern Mediterranean but also the major part of the southern shore of the western Mediterranean, the Black Sea—a “Turkish lake” until the 1780s—the Red Sea, and part of the Arab/Persian Gulf.Geography gave the sea a decisive role in the trade that took place in the Ottoman Empire both internationally and domestically.

scholarly journals “I Greatly Rejoiced When Our Business Was to Be Resolved by a Decree of the Great White Tsar...”: Letters of the Kalmyk Khan Ayuka to the Emperor Peter Alekseevich and Chancellor G. I. Golovkin (1714)

2020 ◽  
pp. 223-235
Author(s):  
Vladimir T. Tepkeev ◽  
◽  
Evgeny V. Bembeev ◽  
Keyword(s):  
18Th Century ◽  
Peace Treaty ◽  
State Archive ◽  
Military Assistance ◽  
Difficult Situation ◽  
Documentary Sources ◽  
Lower Volga ◽  
Russian State ◽  
Russian Military ◽  
Early 18Th Century

The article addresses written evidence of the Russian-Kalmyk relations in the early 18th century. It is to introduce into scientific use new documentary sources belonging that period when the epistolary written tradition of the Kalmyk nobility was at its apogee. While studying these sources, not only a brief historical description of the period has been provided, but also methods of paleographic identification of manuscripts and archaeographic analysis of the monuments of Old Kalmyk writing have been used. The article publishes transliteration, translation, and two copies of the original letters of Kalmyk Khan Ayuka: one addressed to the Emperor Peter Alekseevich, another to the Chancellor Gavriil Ivanovich Golovkin. Both letters have been found in the Kalmyk Affairs Foundation of the Russian State Archive of Ancient Acts. The letters were delivered to Moscow by the Kalmyk embassy led by Hojim (1714). Until now their contents have remained unknown to the wide array of researchers. The documents contain information on the difficult situation on the Russo-Turkish frontier after the signing of the Adrianople Peace Treaty in 1713. Participation of the 20,000 Kalmyk cavalry in the Kuban campaign against the Nogais (1711) incited the latter to retaliate. Kalmyk areas on the Lower Volga were constantly threatened the Kuban Nogais, which forced Ayuka Khan to ask for Russian military assistance. A distinctive feature of these sources is the fact that they are written in the old-Kalmyk writing “Todo bichig” (“clear writing”) and end with a red square stamp granted to Ayuka Khan by Dalai Lama VI in 1698. The letters are phrased in the traditional epistolary genre typical of the official correspondence of the Kalmyk nobility of the time: despite their brevity, they brim with truth, life, dynamism, and tension. Further identification and investigation of the Kalmyk letters in the Russian archives should be a comprehensive effort of various specialists, thus setting a promising trend in the scholarship.

scholarly journals The historiography of the Kazakhs’ Junior Horde incorporation into the Russian Empire (the pre-revolutionary period)

2016 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 122-126
Author(s):  
Gulbanu Bolatovna Izbassarova
Keyword(s):  
Black Sea ◽  
18Th Century ◽  
Russian Empire ◽  
The Black Sea ◽  
Character Assessment ◽  
The Russian Empire ◽  
Concept Change ◽  
Academy Of Sciences ◽  
First Time ◽  
Revolutionary Period

The Kazakhs Junior Horde, due to external - internal political reasons was the first one who became the part of Russian Empire. Chinggizid Abulkhair was an initiator of the Kazakh society incorporation into the structure of the Russian Empire. The aggravation of the Kazakh-Bashkir, Kazakh-Kalmyk, Kazakh-Dzungar relations leads to a search for a strong overlord. At the beginning of the 18th century, after the Prut campaign, the interests of the Russian Empire moved from the Black Sea to Asia, which is south-east direction. Formation of the imperial concept, change in the concept of Russias historical mission on the international scene forms new strategic and political aims of the Russian Empire. The Academy of Sciences founded in 1724 by the emperor Peter I as well as representatives of local administrations started to explain to the Russian public the acquisition of new lands policy. The reflection of this event to the Russian historiography of the XVIII-XIX centuries is studied in this article. The attention is paid to the study of a concept of citizenship, an interpretation of its character, assessment of the Kazakh khan Abulkhair, the accession initiator by pre-revolutionary historiography representatives. The article considers views of P.I. Rychkov, A.I. Levshin, who are for the first time in their writings, on the basis of archival, authentic sources, gathered a wealth of factual material, scientifically substantiated opinions on the issue of incorporation.

scholarly journals RUSSIAN-TURKISH WAR 1877-1878 IN IRANIAN HISTORIOGRAPHY OF THE XIX CENTURY AND MODERN IRANIAN HISTORIOGRAPHY

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 56-61
Author(s):  
MOHAMMAD SALMASIZADEH ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Mediterranean Sea ◽  
Ottoman Empire ◽  
Black Sea ◽  
World Trade ◽  
The Black Sea ◽  
Historical Event ◽  
Territorial Expansion ◽  
Eastern Question ◽  
The Mediterranean ◽  
Xix Century

The conflict between the Russian and Turkish in 1877-1878, though formed on the pretext of Russia's support for Christian nations under the rule of the Ottoman Empire, was actually part of the great scheme that European governments had begun to break up the Ottoman Empire and resolve the Eastern Question. The goals of these powers for world domination, that would sometimes results in wars among themselves, were mainly focused on expanding the territorial realm and winning economic gains. These goals were followed under the disguise of gaining freedom for Christians and securing independence for non-Turkish nations. The scientific and technological impairment of the Ottoman Empire compared to the European countries, accompanied by internal rivalries and frequent overthrow of the rulers, were some of the main weaknesses of the Ottoman state causing their demise. In the meantime, Russia was in pursue of its policy of territorial expansion and seeking access to warm waters. Russia's main objective was to obtain access to the Black Sea and the Mediterranean Sea. Having control over the Straits of Bosporus and Dardanelles that were under the rule of the Ottoman Empire would have connected Russia to the center of world trade in the Mediterranean and would have freed Russia from its land blockages and frozen ports. The causality, the start, and the ramifications of these wars have been reflected in the Iranian historiography of that era. Mohammad Hassan Khan Etemad al-Saltanah, a great historian of the Nasereddin Shah Qajar Age (1848-1898), using the reports of Iranian officials in Russia and the Ottoman Empire, and two books of Montazame Nasseri and Merat al-Boldan that were translations of selected articles from the French and Ottoman newspapers have recorded this important historical event. The reasons for Iranian attention to this historical event forms part of the modern and global historiography of Iran, in which attention to the developments in the Ottoman Empire plays an important role in Iran's acquaintance with modern civilization.

The Power of the Weak Opponent: The Diplomacy of Alexander I in Tilsit

2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 209-223
Author(s):  
Claus Scharf
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Ottoman Empire ◽  
Black Sea ◽  
The Black Sea ◽  
The Political ◽  
French Army ◽  
Bargaining Position ◽  
Russian Soil ◽  
Strategic Goals ◽  
Napoleonic Era

Not only in Soviet patriotic historiography the conduct of war and the foreign policy of Alexander i were regarded as heroic only from the battle of Borodino onward. The earlier years of the Napoleonic Era and the retreat of Russian armies during the summer of 1812 appeared in a negative light. Revisionist research in Russia and abroad offers another interpretation. When the French army in 1807 after some victorious battles reached the Russian border Alexander maintained a much better bargaining position in talks with Napoleon than disappointed critics among the Russian elite recognized. The emperor of the French was not prepared to continue the war on Russian soil and did not make territorial demands on Russia. Napoleon wanted not only an armistice and peace, but also an alliance with Russia against Britain. Thus Alexander, using the power of the weak opponent, succeeded in winning time. Russia was able not only to maintain her strategic goals against the Ottoman Empire in the Rumanian principalities and in the Black Sea, but also to defend the political existence of Prussia as a possible Russian ally in a future coalition with Austria against Napoleon, which meant a sacrifice of Polish interests by Russia.

scholarly journals The Armenian Language as a Remembrance and Manifestation of the Islamized Hamshenians’ Ethnic Identity

2007 ◽  
Vol 3 (2 (4)) ◽  
pp. 162-173
Author(s):  
Lusine Sahakyan
Keyword(s):  
Ethnic Identity ◽  
Ottoman Empire ◽  
Black Sea ◽  
The State ◽  
The Black Sea ◽  
The People ◽  
Linguistic Evidence

The article examines the language used by the present-day generation of the people of Islamized Hamshenians of Armenian origin as a memory and expression of their identity. As a result of the merging linguistic policy of the Ottoman Empire the vast majority of the generations of the Hamshen Armenians who were forced to convert to Muslim have become Turkish speaking in the course of time. Only the Hamshen Armenians in the state of Ardvin still preserve the dialect of Hamshen. The linguistic evidence presented in the article indicates that the dialect of the Hamshen Armenians in the state of Khopa is still viable today and that they keep speaking, telling stories and singing songs in that language. These written facts are valuable materials for Armenian philology and lexicology. These examples can help discover phonetic, grammatical and lexical similarities, differences between the Islamized Hamshen Armenians and Christian Hamshenians living on the northern coasts of the Black Sea.

scholarly journals CAN TURKISH AND US CO-OPERATION IN THE BLACK SEA REGION INCREASE EFFICIENCY GAINS?

2017 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 34-49
Author(s):  
Sedat AYBAR
Keyword(s):  
Black Sea ◽  
Fixed Effects ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
Ordinary Least Squares ◽  
The Black Sea ◽  
Efficiency Gains ◽  
Black Sea Region ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Eu

This paper examines the impact of co-operation between Turkey and  the US upon Turkish trade and investments towards the Black Sea  region. The study is particularly important in the conjuncture of the  US withdrawal from the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and in the wake of signing a free  trade agreement with the EU. An additional matter of importance  relates to the improved Turkey – Russia economic collaboration especially after the “jet” incident and American  involvement with the Middle East. Significant part of the latter is  economic as the US has also explicit economic interests in the  Eastern Meditteranean. A gravity model has been employed using  ordinary least squares on a panel data with fixed effects to analyse aggregate trade. We have also categorized export groups of  Turkey and the US separately. Our findings for both Turkish and the US exports indicate that per-capita GDP of Black Sea countries are  highly persistent and positively correlated with increased efficiency  gains and trade volumes. Regression results show that the US  exports to the EU member countries are on average less than to  those non-EU member Black Sea countries. Hence, we question  whether a possible co-operation between the US and Turkish  companies can help gaining better access to the Black Sea market for their exports.

scholarly journals THE PEOPLES OF THE NORTH CAUCASUS IN THE RELATIONS OF RUSSIA AND TURKEY IN THE 1770-1790 s

2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 24-34
Author(s):  
D S Kidirniyazov
Keyword(s):  
Legal Status ◽  
18Th Century ◽  
Local Population ◽  
Geographical Area ◽  
External Control ◽  
The Black Sea ◽  
Peace Treaty ◽  
North Caucasus ◽  
The North ◽  
The Crimea

The Küçük Kaynardzha Peace Treaty of 1774, which sanctioned joining of Kabardia and Ossetia to Russia and formal independence of the Kuban Nogais, once again confirmed that the solution of the question of the international legal status of the North Caucasus was the prerogative right of great powers and did not belong to the sphere of Russian-Caucasian relations. Since the 1770s, military lines in the form of fortification chains and some Cossack settlements were built in the region. Access to the Black Sea at the end of the 18th century and joining of the Crimea to Russia became important events in international life and politics. They raised the authority of Russia in Europe and at the same time heightened tensions with the Turkish Empire. The people’s liberation movement under Sheikh Mansur’s command caused a massive public outcry in the North Caucasus due to common goals of the local peoples in the liberation struggle. The Treaty of Jassy of 1791 only confirmed the terms of the peace treaty of 1774 without any new territorial changes in the region. During the period under consideration, the Russian authorities hardly took any actions in regards to the local peoples. The actions of the Russian administration in the region did not go beyond external control and encouragement of trade and economic ties between the local population and immigrants from the central provinces of Russia. The control was carried out by the military authorities actively introduced into the geographical area of the region (construction of fortresses, creation of new garrisons and places of deployment of Russian troops). The creation of the civil administration of the region (vicarious authority, government, police force) was also started.

scholarly journals THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE IN THE INTERCIVILIZATION DIALOGUE IN SOUTHERN UKRAINE. THOUGHTS ON THE NEW APPROACHES TO TURKISH HISTORIOGRAPHY

2021 ◽  
pp. 15-20
Author(s):  
Vodotyka S. ◽  
Robak I.
Keyword(s):  
Roman Empire ◽  
Ottoman Empire ◽  
Middle Ages ◽  
Black Sea ◽  
Middle Eastern ◽  
The Black Sea ◽  
Black Sea Region ◽  
The Crimea ◽  
History Of ◽  
Primary Basis

The article is devoted to reviewing the book by the well-known Turkish historian İlber Ortaylı "Ottomans on Three Continents". The authors consistently analyze the main postulates of the work in the history of Ottoman possessions in the Crimea and the Northern Black Sea region, focusing on the role of the Ottoman Empire in the interaction of Black Sea civilizations in the late Middle Ages and early modern times.The authors prove that the history of the Ottoman Empire is essential for understanding the history of Ukraine. Ottoman influences significantly impacted the history of the Ukrainian people and other indigenous peoples of Ukraine – Crimean Tatars, Karaites and Krymchaks, Crimean Greeks.The authors agree with the thesis of the Turkish researcher about the significant and sometimes decisive influence of the Ottomans on the situation in the Black Sea region in the XV–XVIII centuries. Furthermore, the authors express their views on certain statements of the book. In particular, İlber Ortaylı proves that the Ottoman Empire was a "state of the Middle Eastern Islamic type". Its presence in the Black Sea resulted in the interaction of Islamic Mediterranean civilization with Eastern European Orthodoxy and Ukraine were at the centre of this interaction. However, the authors cannot agree with the historian's statement about the primary basis of the empire – the system of the state, especially military, slavery (devshirme). It allowed to creation of a vast empire, The Sublime or Ottoman Porte. However, slavery could not create social mechanisms of progress. The civilizational basis of the Ottoman Empire was its steppe, Turkic-steppe, essence.In the Ottoman Empire, Western modernization borrowings were superficial, served utilitarian-pragmatic purposes, and did not change the foundations of civilization. Such selectable reforms were the reason why the Omans lost their possessions in the Crimea and the Northern Black Sea region to the Russian Empire in the eighteenth century. Significantly, both empires claim the imperial, not civilizational, heritage of the Roman Empire. The intelligence emphasizes that these claims are not sufficiently substantiated.Key words: İlber Ortaylı, Ottoman Empire, heritage, history of Ukraine, Northern Black Sea Coast, Crimea. Стаття присвячена огляду-рецензії книги відомого турецького історика Ільбера Ортайли «Османи на трьох континентах». Автори послідовно проаналізували основні постулати праці в координатах історії османських володінь в Криму і Північному Причорномор’ї, приділивши головну увагу ролі Османської імперії у взаємодії цивілізацій Чорномор’я у періоди пізнього середньовіччя і раннього модерного часу.Доведено, що історія Османської імперії має важливе значення для розуміння історії України. Османські впливи відіграли значну роль в історії українського народу та інших корінних народів України – кримських татар, караїмів і кримчаків, кримських греків.Автори погоджуються з тезою турецького дослідника про значний, а часом визначальний, вплив Османів на ситуацію у Чорномор’ї у ХV–ХVІІІ ст. та висловлюють свої міркування щодо окремих положень праці. Зокрема, І. Ортайли кваліфіковано доводить, що Османська імперія була «державою близькосхідно-ісламського типу» і її присутність у Чорномор’ї мала наслідком взаємодію ісламської середземноморської цивілізації зі східноєвропейською православною, причому Україна знаходилась у центрі цієї взаємодії. Однак, не можна погодитись з твердженням історика щодо головної основи імперії – системи державного, передусім військового, рабства (девшірме). Вона дозволило створити величезну імперію, Сяючу Порту, але рабство не може створити суспільних механізмів поступу. Цивілізаційною основою Османської імперії стала її степова, тюрксько-степова, сутність. В Османській імперії західні модернізаційні запозичення були поверховими, служили утилітарно-прагматичним цілям і не змінювали цивілізаційних основ. Власне це і стало основною причиною того, що у ХVІІІ ст. Омани втратили свої володіння в Криму і Північному Причорномор’ї, які дістались Російській імперії. Показово, що обидві імперії висувають претензії на імперську, а не цивілізаційну, спадщину Римської імперії. У розвідці наголошується, що ці претензії не є достатньо обґрунтованими. Ключові слова: І. Ортайли, Османська імперія, спадщина, історія України, Північне Причорномор’я, Крим.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document