Related papers
The Crimean Khanate between East and West (15th-18th Century) (Wiesbaden 2012)
Denise Klein
View PDFchevron_right
Negotiating Power in the Crimean Khanate. Notes on Tatar Political Thought and Practice (16th-18th c.)
Denise Klein
Political Thought and Practice in the Ottoman Empire: Halcyon Days in Crete IX, 9–11 January 2015, ed. Marinos Sariyannis, Rethymno, 2019
View PDFchevron_right
D.V. Sen’ . CRIMEAN KHANATE IN THE LATE 17th -THE BEGINNING OF THE 18th CENTURY: FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC POLICY UNDER THE NEW HISTORICAL " CHALLENGES " // IZVESTIYA VUZOV. SEVERO-KAVKAZSKII REGION. SOCIAL SCIENCES. 2018. No. 2
Sen' Dmitry
Исследуется политика правящих Гиреев в связи с изменением международных отношений, существенно ухуд-шивших положение Крымского ханства на рубеже XVII–XVIII вв. Анализируется значение нового «пограничного порядка» в трансформации набеговой системы Крымского ханства, вызвавшего недовольство со стороны много-численных подданных крымских ханов. Новые международные договоры (Бахчисарайский, Карловицкий и Кон-стантинопольский) привели не только к эволюции русско-турецких, русско-крымских и крымско-турецких отно-шений. Они вызвали новое явление в политической и даже в повседневной жизни населения Крымского ханства – опасения и страхи за свою судьбу и за будущее страны. Анализируются формы и содержание подобных негатив-ных реакций со стороны подданных крымских ханов, которые были вынуждены лавировать в новых условиях. Сде-лан вывод о стремлении Гиреев минимизировать потери от ухудшившейся для ханства международной обстанов-ки, об их попытках найти новые способы выхода из сложившейся ситуации. Ключевые слова: Крымское ханство, международные отношения, набеги, Османская империя, Россия, договоры, границы. This article is devoted to the policy of the ruling Giray Dynasty in connection with the change of international relations , which made matters of the Crimean khanate significantly worse at the turn of 17-18th centuries. This is a study of the role and importance of the new " border order " in the transformation of the Crimean khanate's raid system , which caused discontent on the part of numerous subjects of the Crimean khans. New treaties (Bakhchisarai, Kar-lovic and Constantinople) led not only to the evolution of Russian-Turkish, Russian-Crimean and Crimean-Turkish relations. They caused a new phenomenon in the political and even daily life of the population of the Crimean khanate-the fears for their own destiny and for the future of the country. Forms and contents of such negative reactions from the subjects of the Crimean khans who were forced to maneuver in new conditions are analyzed. It is concluded that the Gireys sought to minimize the losses for the khanate from the deteriorating international situation, and also they attempted to find new ways to overcome this situation.
View PDFchevron_right
BASHKIRIA AND THE KHANATE OF KAZAN THE PROBLEM OF ADMINISTRATIVE AND POLITICAL RELATIONSHIP
vladimir ivanov
Military, political and economic dependence of Bashkiria from the Khanate of Kazan in the XV th and the first half of the XVI th centuries seems so obvious that most of the historical maps of the northwestern districts of Bashkortostan are included in the territorial boundaries of the Khanate of Kazan. Thus, the territory of this state artificially increased to the Ural Mountains in the east. However, upon careful consideration of the few (and mostly-indirect) sources, reflecting the history of Bashkir-Kazan relationship, it turns out that in the context of administrative relationship Bashkiria has never been the part of the Khanate of Kazan.
View PDFchevron_right
The Collapse of Kazan Khanate 450 years ago
Nadir Devlet
View PDFchevron_right
Of Khans and Kremlins: Tatarstan and the future of ethno-federalism in Russia
Babak Rezvani
2011
Bespreking van: ,Of Khans and Kremlins: Tatarstan and the future of ethno-federalism in Russia Lanham & New York:Lexington Books ,2009 978-0739126356
View PDFchevron_right
I. Vásáry, The Tatar Factor in the Formation of Muscovy’s Political Culture. In: Reuven Amitai – Michal Biran (eds.), Nomads as Agents of Cultural Change. The Mongols and Their Eurasian Predecessors. University of Hawa‘i Press: Honolulu 2015, pp. 252–270.
István Vásáry
View PDFchevron_right
NEW TRENDS IN WORLD HISTORIOGRAPHY ON THE HISTORY OF TATARS
Tasin GEMIL
The Russian (including Soviet) historiography has been trying for a long time to eliminate the “Tatars” from Russian history. In fact, the Russian historians are unwilling to admit that the Tatars and the states they had formed dominated Russia for almost 300 years (13th-15th centuries). Moreover, nationalist Russian historians deny the real and significant contribution of the Tatars in the formation and development of the Russian state centred on the Grand Duchy of Moscow. For hundreds of years – and still today – Russia has been propagating a negative image of the Tatars with the subsequent aim of justifying the systemic invasion of the territories that once belonged to the Tatars. The chief preoccupation of the Russian historiography is related to the imperial legitimacy, a highly relevant issue for Russia. The Russian rulers have adopted the tile of ‘tsar’ (emperor) in 1547, when Ivan the Terrible ascended to the Muscovite throne. The Russian politics focused on the conquest and destruction of the Tatar states, first the Tatar khanate of Kazan in 1552, then the other Tatars khanates (Astrakhan, Kasim, Siberia, Nogay, and, eventually, Crimea). These politics were dictated by the wish of the self-proclaimed Russian emperor to legitimize his new position in the world and in history. The only imperial justification that the Russian tsars could make was with the inheritance of the great empire of the Golden Horde (1242-1502). To this view, the Russian tsars prioritised the conquest of the abovementioned Tatar states that remained of the Golden Horde so as to present themselves as the upholders of this empire. The Russian tsars appropriated imperial titles and symbols of the Golden Horde, being constantly preoccupied with the recognition of their imperial power by the whole world. Thus, the Eurasia project was put into practice, designed precisely on the immense area once belonging to the Golden Horde. But, as the Golden Horde was a state of Turk-Islamic (Tatar) essence, it did not formally correspond to the plans and pretentions of the pravoslavnic Russian empire. Hence, the obsessive desire to remove the Tatars from history and to mystify the substance of the Golden Horde. Nowadays, with the naïve or biased support of foreign, namely Western, historians, there are attempts to break the organic ties of the Tatar people with the greatest state in its history – the Golden Horde. In many recent works, including under the aegis of renowned publishing houses in the U.S.A., the Mongol appellative is used instead of the Tatar name, even for the khanates that were heirs of the Golden Horde. There is a clear attempt to remove Tatars from history. This study starts from two volumes recently published in the U.S.A. and present the historical and current resources of this new campaign directed against the Tatars, whose historical lands were abducted also by Russia.
View PDFchevron_right
The Predicament of the Crimean Tatars, Past and Present
Selim Tezcan
This article demonstrates how, with the rise of Russia as a major power in Caucasia and the Black Sea regions, the people of Crimea lost their independence and homeland. In the fifteenth century, two centuries after its conquest by a grandson of Genghis Khan, the Crimea came to house an independent Khanate. Inner struggles in the Khanate and its rivalry with the Genoese traders along the coast led to its vassaldom to the Ottomans. The rivalry that subsequently developed with Russia caused the contested regions to keep changing hands for the next two centuries. By the mid-seventeenth century, the Rus-sians had gained considerable power throughout East Europe. The Russians' increasingly harsh policies and systematic dispossession encouraged the mass emigration of Tatars, who eventually found themselves a minority in their fatherland. The dispossession process ended with the deportation of the entire Tatar population from the Crimea in May 1944. Although the Tatars began returning to the Crimea in large numbers after the collapse of the Soviet Union, they met with a hostile reception and continued to be excluded from the ranks of government.
View PDFchevron_right
Problematizing the World of the Muslim Tatars of the Russian Empire and Beyond
Uli Schamiloglu, ECO Educational Institute
Connectivities and Common Legacies in Central Asia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and Turkey, 2022
In this paper, Uli Schamiloglu attempts to problematize the formation and history of the present-day Tatars (with a focus on the Kazan Tatars) by examining several elements of continuity and discontinuity. The elements of continuity over the past thousand years include classical Muslim networks, commercial networks, and later Sufi networks. The elements of discontinuity include the arrival of new tribes as a part of the establishment of the Mongol World Empire in the 13th century, the depopulation and disruption caused by the Black Death in the 14th century, and the arrival of new tribes from the east in the late 14th century. Although the ancestors of the modern Kazan Tatars were involved in classical transregional networks beginning a millennium ago, from the late 18th century on, they became involved in new pre-modern and modern movements. This included transregional Orthodox Muslim networks, but later also movements associated with modernity such as the decoupling of education, language, history, and identity from the religious sphere. Finally, it describes briefly a series of individuals who left the Russian Empire to go into exile or became a part of Tatar merchant diaspora communities. Whoever they were, whatever level of education they had, whatever their occupation, Tatars, and scholars of Tatar origin, were involved in transregional social, economic, and intellectual connections.
View PDFchevron_right