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.

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.

THE OTTOMAN ALGERIAN ELITE AND ITS IDEOLOGY

2000 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 323-344 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tal Shuval
Keyword(s):  
Seventeenth Century ◽  
Ottoman Empire ◽  
20Th Century ◽  
North Africa ◽  
18Th Century ◽  
The Sublime ◽  
Nation States ◽  
The One

By the late seventeenth century, Algeria and Tunisia had established regimes that were largely independent of Ottoman sovereignty in almost every regard, although the Porte continued, in strictly legal terms, to exert minimal rights of sovereignty.        Michel Le Gall1But, let there be no mistake: the more a regency of Barbary has become fearsome to the Christian princes, the more the Sultan is its absolute master. He had only to utter a word to end an unjust war and fix even the terms for peace.        Jean-Michel Venture de Paradis2Separated by two centuries, these two quotations describe the role of the Ottoman Empire in North Africa in very different—indeed, contradictory—terms. On the one hand, Ottoman North Africa is depicted as a region where independent political entities emerged out of a century of Ottoman rule, ready as it were for the eventual emergence of nation-states in the 20th century. Venture de Paradis's earlier description, however, is devoid of the hindsight gained by our knowledge of the “end of the story.” It tells us that by the end of the 18th century, contrary to the contemporary accepted view of the remoteness of the Maghribi “regencies” from the imperial center in Istanbul, the three Ottoman provinces of North Africa were indeed an integral part of the Ottoman Empire, and the rulers of these provinces were obedient subjects of the Sublime Porte.

scholarly journals Establishment of the Greek state (1830)

2020 ◽  
Vol 23 (11) ◽  
pp. 91-96
Author(s):  
Gulnara Sadraddinova
Keyword(s):  
Ottoman Empire ◽  
19Th Century ◽  
18Th Century ◽  
Great Powers ◽  
Peace Treaty ◽  
Special Importance ◽  
Russian Government ◽  
The West ◽  
London Protocol ◽  
The 19Th Century

At the beginning of the 19th century, under the influence of the French bourgeois revolution and nationalist ideas, the Greeks revolted to secede from the Ottoman Empire and gain independence. It was no coincidence that the main members of the Filiki Etheriya Society, which led the uprising, as well as its secret leaders were Greeks who served the Russian government. Russia, which wanted to break up the Ottoman Empire and gain a foothold in the seas, had been embroiled in various conflicts with the Austrian alliance since the 18th century, before the uprising. Russia, which managed to isolate the Ottoman Empire from the West through the Greek uprising, also acquired large tracts of land through the Edirne Peace Treaty, which was signed as a result of the Russo-Turkish War. However, although Britain, France, Austria, and Prussia agreed with Russia on granting autonomy to Greece, they did not intend to transfer control of the newly formed state to Russia. The revolt of the Greeks against the Ottoman Empire in 1821-1830 resulted in the victory of the Greeks. The revolt was organized and intensified with the help of great powers. The article discusses Greece's independence as a result of the uprising. In this regard, the London Protocol of April 3, 1830, signed by Russia, France and England, is of special importance. The newly established Greek state was revived as the Aegean state. Greece's borders have become clearer. The article also deals with the redefinition of the Ottoman-Greek borders by the Treaty of Constantinople of 1832. Although the London Protocol of 1830 formally established the Greek state, the Great Powers and the Greeks were not content with that. Russia, as during the uprising, remained a state that influenced the "Eastern policy" of European states after the uprising. This study was dedicated to all these factors.

scholarly journals Suggestions on an Editorial Guideline for the Latin Language Peace Treaties between the Habsburg and the Ottoman Empire Based on the 18th-century Case Study

2021 ◽  
Vol 148 (4) ◽  
pp. 769-794
Author(s):  
Gergely Brandl
Keyword(s):  
Ottoman Empire ◽  
18Th Century ◽  
Theoretical Framework ◽  
Peace Treaty ◽  
Historical Texts ◽  
Latin Language ◽  
Peace Treaties

The aim of the paper is to provide a conceptual and theoretical framework for transcription of Latin historical texts based on the case study of the peace treaty of Passarowitz (1718). The article discusses some of the major works on editing Latin source publications concerning the scripts originating from the territories of the Hungarian kingdom. The paper attempts to provide answers for two major questions. Firstly, why should a specific sample-based guideline be elaborated on in case of the Ottoman-Habsburg Latin peace treaty documents and secondly, how should it be done. In accordance with that, the paper presents a sample guideline in the appendix, with transcriptional examples for the most of the relevant problems, covering the issues of transcription, editorial

scholarly journals LEGAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL SITUATION IN AGRICULTURE OF THE VIROVITICA COUNTY AND THE CITY OF OSIJEK IN THE SECOND HALF OF THE 18TH CENTURY

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 73-84
Author(s):  
Daniel Haman ◽  
◽  
Darko Iljkić ◽  
Ivana Varga
Keyword(s):  
Eastern Europe ◽  
Ottoman Empire ◽  
Central And Eastern Europe ◽  
18Th Century ◽  
Habsburg Monarchy ◽  
New Era ◽  
Regional Administration ◽  
Short Time ◽  
The City ◽  
Laws And Regulations

The Treaty of Karlowitz signed in 1699 concluded the rule of the Ottoman Empire in most parts of Central and Eastern Europe. Liberation of Osijek in 1687, and consequently of whole Slavonia in 1699 brought a new era of freedom and prosperity to its citizens. At least for a short time, since the Habsburg Monarchy re-established their rule over the country by bringing feudal laws and regulations back into force. Austrian empress and Hungarian-Croatian Queen Maria Theresa united Slavonia with Croatia, and re-established the counties of Virovitica, Požega and Syrmia, meaning that the regional administration of Slavonia was completely relinquished to the civil authorities.

scholarly journals The problem of border demarcation between Montenegro and Turkey after the Congress of Berlin of 1878(covered by ‘Niva' magazine at the beginning of the 1880s)

2019 ◽  
pp. 325-341
Author(s):  
Natalia Strunina-Borodina
Keyword(s):  
Ottoman Empire ◽  
Peace Treaty ◽  
Saint Petersburg ◽  
Diffi Cult ◽  
History Of ◽  
Balkan State

The article is devoted to a diffi cult period in the history of Montenegro after the Congress of Berlin of 1878, when the young Balkan state was offi cially recognised an independent from the Ottoman Empire. Montenegro sought, fi rst of all with the help of its faithful patron Russia, the implementation of the peace treaty articles concerning border demarcation between the Principality and Turkey. Due to the Turkish unwillingness to transfer the territories established by the agreement to Montenegro, this process turned out to be rather complicated, and eventually it дштпукув on for several years and was accompanied by recurrent military clashes. All these plots were described in detail in «Niva», an illustrated magazine published in Saint Petersburg, very popular in Russia at the time.

Demographic and Religious Changes in Nahiya Kara Lom in the 17th–18th Centuries

Epohi ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nevena Nedelcheva ◽  
◽  
◽  
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Ottoman Empire ◽  
Detrimental Effect ◽  
18Th Century ◽  
Radical Change ◽  
Sharp Decline ◽  
Economic Problems ◽  
Population Migrations

The report presents the changes that took place in nahiya Kara Lom between the late 17th and early 18th centuries. It is based on published and unpublished Ottoman documents – detailed cizye and avariz defters, stored in the Ottoman Archives in Istanbul and at the Oriental Department in Sofia. They were composed in the late 17th – first half of the 18th centuries. At the turn of the 18th century, very significant transformations took place in this region, which changed its appearance and state fundamentally. The main focus of the study is on the demographic and religious changes and processes in the region. They were expressed in the sharp decline of the population. This process was specific to the whole region, and its causes can be traced to many factors that have had a detrimental effect. These included climate change, plague epidemics, population migrations, economic problems in the Ottoman Empire, and the process of Islamization. They led to a decline in the population of Kara Lom, which can be described as a demographic crisis. In the vortex of this crisis, there was a “change” of the confessional image of the nahiya, i.e. a radical change in the religious model of the district, which had disastrous consequences for many settlements in the region. The report provides possible explanations for the demographic and religious transformations in nahiya Kara Lom, which shaped the area in the next century as we know it today.

The Public and Economic Activities of the Hִatim Family of Istanbul: A Chapter in the History of the Jewish Leadership in Istanbul and Jerusalem in the 19th Century

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 97-127
Author(s):  
Leah Bornstein-Makovetsky
Keyword(s):  
Ottoman Empire ◽  
19Th Century ◽  
18Th Century ◽  
Economic Activities ◽  
The Public ◽  
Economic Elite ◽  
Late 18Th Century ◽  
History Of ◽  
The 19Th Century

This article discusses the biographies and economic and public activities of the Ḥatim family in Istanbul in the late 18th century and throughout the 19th century. Most of the attention is focused on R. Shlomo Ḥatim and his son Yitsḥak, who were members of the Jewish elite in Istanbul and settled in Jerusalem at the ends of their lives. R. Shlomo, who is said to have served the Ottoman authorities in Istanbul, settled in Jerusalem more than ten years before the leaders of the Jewish economic elite in Istanbul were executed in the 1820s. His son, surviving this purge, followed much later, immigrating to Israel in 1846, but died immediately thereafter. This article provides insights into the business activities of the Ḥatim family, as well as the activities of Yitsḥak Ḥatim as an Ottoman official in Istanbul. I also discuss two more generations of this family, considered an elite, privileged one, and that was highly esteemed among well-known rabbis in the Ottoman Empire. I also discuss the ties that developed between the communities of Istanbul and Jerusalem in the first half of the 19th century as a result of initiatives of officials in Istanbul and of immigration from Istanbul to Jerusalem.

From the History of the Reign of Solomon I in Imereti (1766-1768)

2021 ◽  
pp. 12-19
Author(s):  
Zalina M. Basieva
Keyword(s):  
Ottoman Empire ◽  
18Th Century ◽  
Religious Culture ◽  
Political Asylum ◽  
Political Issues ◽  
Important Message ◽  
History Of

All known official appeals from Imereti to the Russian court in the 18th century were made under strict secrecy from the Ottoman Empire, and the embassies were either headed by clergy or representatives of the clergy were always part of the embassies. The principle of forming the composition of the embassy clearly indicates that the clergy of Imereti, as well as Kartli-Kakheti, was directly involved in political issues, and the ambassadors were supporters of the current rulers or kings. The clergy served as a living proof of Imereti’s commitment to the Christian world, despite Ottoman rule, oppression and the decline of religious culture. However, during the period we are considering, the first appeal of Solomon I to Russia for support (1766), he attracts only a representative from the Imeretian princes. The organization of the message was entrusted to Prince Kaihosro Tsereteli. Then the connection with Kizlyar was secretly maintained through the hegumen of the Ossetian spiritual commission Gregory, who already in 1768 was instructed to deliver a response message from Russia to Solomon, on condition that the secrecy of the owner’s correspondence with Russia be kept. The Imeretian and Abkhaz Catholicos Vissarion, acting at that time, cannot participate in this secret case, due to opposition to the king of the Rachinsky Eristovs, other persons from the Georgian clergy are not involved by Solomon either. Solomon’s non-representative appeal to Russia can only be associated with his position ol an exile and his inability to form the composition of the embassy, which is assigned to the tsar. Instead, we see that King Solomon is sending a single “messenger” with an important message from the princes of Tsereteli. Based on a comparison of the known historical facts of the reign of Solomon I in Imereti and the information presented in the document under consideration, the conditions and reasons that led Solomon in 1766 to a written appeal to Russia about the possibility of granting him political asylum are clarified.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document