Did the Crimean Khans collect tribute (harâç or hazine)

from Moldova and Wallachia?

Sergean OSMAN

Abstract: Although the Romanian kings have paid cash sums to

the sovereign in Bahçesaray, those instances, though frequent,

were of a special nature and occurred with such discontinuity

that we cannot place the Romanian Principalities in the same

group as those countries which paid regular tribute to the

Crimean Khanate. Despite the fact that we could not paint the

full qualitative and quantitative picture of the gifts

received by the Tatar elite from the munificent rulers of

Walachia and Moldavia, we were able to highlight the rules of

regular and special presents that were sent and also the long

line of beneficiaries among the Tatar dignitaries.

Relevant literature claims that, during 17th and 18th

centuries, as in previous times, Romanian princes had also

paid a tribute to the sovereign of Bahçesaray. Although there

was no critical analysis of the pretended proofs,

paradoxically, this statement was supported by the specialists

in the Ottoman and Tatar complex diplomatic science, such as

Alexandre Bennigsen, Perten Naili Boratav, Dilek Desaive,

Chantal Lemercier-Quelquejay, meritorious editors of the

volume regarding the Crimean Khanate; these official documents

were safeguarded in the Topkapı Palace archives, in Istanbul.

This prestigious list should also comprise the name of Alan W.

Fisher.

By chance, the curious opinion according to which the

Crimean Khan received tributes sent by the princes of Moldova

and Wallachia was not transmitted by an apprentice ignorant of

the Crimean Khan’s gains, but by expert Charles de Peyssonnel.

As consul of France to Crimea, the latter resided in the

peninsula for half a decade and had special contacts with Khan

Kırım Giray (1758-1764; 1768-1769), while preserving his

connexion with the leaders of the Tatars, and even after his

transfer, in 1763, to a consular position previously held by

his father, in İzmir (Smirna). Charles de Peyssonnel took part

in Khan Kırım Giray’s campaign in Moldova, and, naturally, he

caught the visible core of the relations between the Khan of

Crimea and the Romanian princes. In his work related to the

trade in the Black Sea, he writes the following descriptive

excerpt:

“Besides the annual tribute that the princes of

Moldova and Wallachia pay to the Khan, the first

«Voivode of Moldova» is compelled to send the Khan a

carriage with six horses and 2.000 sequins, for the

latter’s ascension to the throne, while the voivode

of Wallachia must send 1000 sequins and a carriage

with six horses. With all this, during the year, the

Khan keeps on demanding gifts from the two princes,

who are almost completely dependent on him out of

fear”.

The extract goes on to point out the essence of the

asymmetry in the relations between Tatars and Romanians:

“The Khan could practically subordinate the princes

through a single demand addressed to the Ottoman

Porte”1.

The fact that the Crimean Khan might have collected

tribute from the Romanian principalities, similarly to the

money paid annually by the lords in Bucharest and Iași to the

sovereign residing on the banks of the Bosphorus, is not

mentioned as a particular fiscal task in either of the various

messages in the correspondence held from the Green Peninsula,

between de Lancey and dignitaries in Paris and French

representatives in Istanbul. Charles de Peyssonnel’s

predecessor, de Lancey, was the first consul, deployed to

Crimea in 1748, who had the mission of promoting French

interests at the court of Khan Arslan Giray (1748-1755), and

to undermine England’s position within the trading network in

Southern Russia.

Neither was the payment of such a tribute to the Crimean

Khan, by the princes of Moldova and Wallachia, mentioned by

1 De Peyssonel, Traité sur la commerce de la Mer Noire, vol. II, Paris, 1787, p.241-243: Outre le tribut annuel que les Princes de Moldovie & de Walachie paient au Khan, lepremier est obligé de lui envoyer à son avénement au trône un carrosse attelé de six chevaux &2000sequins, & celui de Walachie 1000 sequins & un équipage de même. Malgré cela, dans le cours del’année, exige des donatives continuelles de ces deux Princes, qui lui sont presqu’entierementsubordonnés par la crainte; Le Khan peut en effet les faire déposer par une seule requête à la Porte.This fragment was printed by A.I. Odobescu, also, (in Hurmuzaki, Documente,vol. III/supl. I, 1709-1812, Bucureşti, 1889, doc V, p.14) after themanuscript preserved in the Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs inParis, erroneously reducing Moldova’s monetary obligation to 200 sequin.

the consul Baron de Tott (Toth) in his renowned “Memoirs”

(Mémoires du Baron de Toth sur les Turcs et les Tartares, ed. J.E. Dufour,

Philippe Roux, Maastricht, 1785, 4 vol.); the Baron was

promoted to the highest rank, Oriental cardinal of French

diplomacy, in 1767, and once he arrived in Bahçesaray,

following the Paris, Vienna, Kamianets-Podilskyi, Khotyn,

Iași, Kishinev and Bucak itinerary, he got involved in the

political scenery unfolding at the Khan’s court and he figured

out the place and the role given to Romanians by the

Bahçesaray leaders, within the context of the total

sovereignty of the Ottoman Porte over Moldova and Wallachia2.

The news offered by de Tott is believable, considering

that past diplomatic missions, carried out in the name of the

King of France to the court of the Crimean Khan, are

successful. In the summer of 1733, on mission by the French

resident in Istanbul, de Villeneuve, de Tott had travelled

through Wallachia and Moldova to Bahçesaray in order to

determine Khan Kaplan Giray (1730-1736) to allow military

support for the ascension to the Polish throne of Stanislav

Leszczynki, then father-in-law to Louis XV3.

This is not the only piece of information about an

alleged tribute paid by Romanian voivodes to the Crimean Khan,

but this one in particular was consecrated through the work of

Charles de Peyssonnel; the information was tacitly warranted2 The massive work of Baron de Tott was harshly criticised by Charles dePeyssonnel, in an amending book, entitled Lettre de M. de Peyssonnel, Ancien Consul-Général à Smyrne, ci-devant Consul de Sa Majesté auprès du Kan des Tartares, à M. le Marquis de N...Contenant quelques Observations relatives au Mémoires qui ont paru sous le nom de M. le Baron deTott. (Amsterdam, 1785, 112 p.).3 Hurmuzaki, Documente, vol I/supl.1, Bucureşti, 1886, doc. DCCIX, p. 487-488; doc. DCCX, p. 488 (instructions from July 11th 1733 given by Villeneuveto de Tott).

by Jean Reuilly, who had travelled through Crimea at the

beginning of 19th century. In his account of his voyage through

the peninsula, in the excerpt on the Crimean Khan’s gains, J.

Reuilly did not mention the sentence regarding the tribute

paid by the Romanian people. Here is the extract:

“Selon Peyssonel, les revenus du Khan montaient à peine à quatre

millions de notre monnaie, et sur ces revenus, il donnait des

assignations à la plupart des officiers de la cour. Il héritait des nobles

qui mouraient sans héritiers au septième degré, mais c’était un

médiocre produit. Les princes de Moldovie et de la Valachie étaient

tenus de lui faire de présens a son avènement. Les terres qui

appartenaient aux Khans ont été données au affermées; les lacs salés

le sont par un bail particulier”4.

In an anonymous “Inquiry” regarding Moldova (L’an 1714.

Responses aux questions sur la Moldovie), which was probably written in

Poland around 1714, and whose beneficiary was the King of

France, the unknown author also included a details on the bags

of money expected by the Tatar elite from the Moldavian

prince. After giving the annual sums and the gifts sent by the

prince of Moldova for the Sultan’s treasury, the autocrat’s

family and the high officials of the Sublime Porte, of which

just the tribute was worth 130 bags, the fragment narrates

succinctly:

4 J. Reuilly, Voyage en Crimée et sur les bords de la Mer Noir, pendant l’année 1803, suivi d’unMémoires sur le Commerce de cette Mer, et de Notes sur les principaux Ports commerçans, Paris,1606, p. 194.

“Outre cela le Prince de Moldavie donne tous les ans au Han de

Tartares et aux Sultans aux princes tartares, ses fils, vingt-cinq

bourses”5.

One foot note of the manuscript preserved at the National

Library in Paris (Départament des Manuscrits, fonds français,

no. 7157, pages 288-292) also specified the equivalent value

of a bag: chaque bourse vaut cinq cents écus de 3 livre.

However, after an ample investigation which revealed

answers to multiple questions regarding the circumstances in

Wallachia and Moldova, an investigation carried on by French

emissaries from Istanbul, in 1712, upon request by the Paris

headquarters, regarding the Moldavian prince’s financial

engagements, there was no account of the tribute paid to the

Crimean Khan, but rather the financial connexion with the

sovereign on both banks of the Bosphorus:

“La province de Moldavie paie au Grand Seigneur un tribut réglé de la

somme de 240 bourses, de 500 écus chaqune, que le Prince a soin de

recevoir et de faire tenir à la Porte”6.

The cash gained by the Khan from the Romanian countries

is not mentioned in the contemporary report entitled “Les

Questions et les réponses sur la Moldavie et la Valachie”

either, a report which only states that Moldova was paying the

“Grand Seigneur” an annual tribute of 240 bags, each bag worth

500 écus. Moreover, each year, 150 highly bred horses were

5 A. Sacerdoţeanu, Du nouveau concernant „une enquête française sur les Principatésroumaines au commencement du XVIII-e siècle”, în R.H.S.E.E., an. VI, 1929, no. 1-3,p. 60.6 Hurmuzaki, Documente, vol. I/supl. 1, doc. DCXXI, p. 417-424. I. Odobescuprinted the report entitled Questions et réponses sur la Moldovie et la Valachie afterthe manuscript found at the Minsitry fo Foreign Affairs, collectionCorrespondance politique - Turquie, vol. 51, pages 317-322.

offered, as well. This document’s analyst, historian C.C.

Giurescu, considered this as: la description de la Moldavie la plus

complète qui ait été faite jusqu’à cette époque par un Français7.

The opinion that the Romanian countries paid tribute to

the Khans, at the end of 17th century, spread to the Russian

political scenery, too. Upon return in his country, the

Russian emissary Dementie Fomin, sent by Moscow to see Șerban

Cantacuzino (1678-1688) and Patriarch Dionisie in Istanbul –

as a reply to the Wallachian mission led by Isaia –, described

Wallachia as “paying tribute to the Turks, the Tatars and the

Habsburg Emperor”8.

In the renowned volume entitled Le Khanat de Crimée dans les

Archives du Musée du Palais de Topkapi, the editors also included

documents directly or tangentially regarding the connexions

between the Crimean Khan and Moldova, Wallachia and

Transylvania. Unfortunately, for unknown reasons, the editors

of the above mentioned volume made an erroneous or ambiguous

translation of the documents containing information about the

relations between Tatars and Romanians. Thus, in Selim Giray’s

letter to the grand vizier, written, according to the editors,

between October 15th 1695 and May 28th 1696, the Khan (1692-

7 C.C.Giurescu, Une enquête française sur les Principautés roumainés au commencement duXVIII-e siècle, excerpt from M.E.R.F., 1924, p. 1-29. The author analysed thedocument after the manuscript found at the Bibliothèque Nationale, quotaNouvelles acquisitions françaies 21661 (the manuscript comes from thelibrary of Orientalist Charles Schefer). C.C. Giurescu considered that the„answers” regarding Moldova had been written in Poland during October 1711and April 1741, and that the manuscript may be attributed to Marquis deBonnac; other possible authors could be the ambassadors of France inPoland, Baluze or Bézenval (ibidem, p. 28-29).8 I.E. Semionova, Stabilirea legăturilor diplomatice permanente între Ţara Românească și Rusiala sfârșitul veacului al XVII-lea și începutul secolului al XVIII –lea, in „Romanoslavica”, t.V,1962, p. 36.

1699) informed the receiver of his intention to travel to

Kerci, together with the Defterdar sent by the Sublime Porte, in

order to adopt the necessary measures to consolidate the

already threatened border.

Without giving the transliteration of the Khan’s

document, the editor interpreted in French a text, as follows:

Mon bienheureux frère, ainsi que le veut la tradition gengiskhanide,

votre serviteur Ahmed Aga a été envoyé en Moldovie et en Valachie

[pour y percevoir le tribut].

Nonetheless, as the letter’s photography shows (letter

kept at the T.S.M.A. – E.2934), only line 11 mentions Ahmed

Ağa’s mission to Moldova and Wallachia, and there is no

reference to haraci or to hazine, the latter term being then

currently and traditionally used at the Khanate’s chancellery

to designate the tribute that was usually requested by the

Russian and Polish rulers. In line 11, the Khan’s pisar

summarised the text in a sentence:

Benim sa’adetlu biraderim şerefiye çengiziyye adedine Boğdan ve Eflak

tarafına Ahmed Ağa bendenizi gönderilmişdir.

Therefore, the excerpt in line 11 gives the unequivocal

meaning:

“My blessed brother, according to the holy Cengizhan

tradition, I

have sent your serve, Ahmed Ağa to Moldova and

Wallachia”9.

9 Le Khanat de Crimée dand les Archives du Musée du Palais de Topkapı, ed. AlexandreBennigsen Pertev Naili Boratov, Dilek Desaive, Chantal Lemercier–Quelquejay, Paris, La Haye, 1978, p. 201-203.

The grand vizier, Elmas Mehmed Pasha (1695-1697) was

asked to facilitate messenger Ahmed Ağa’s mission. Probably in

a haste, the then current interpreter in French of the Khan’s

letter read harac instead of tarafina. The error would not have

existed had someone observed that the term taraf, written the

same and bearing the same meaning, is written two lines

before, in line 9 of the same official document.

The same volume also presents, as concise results, but

without the photographic images, the content of five letters

(T.S.M.A –E. 5785/7; E. 5785/2; E.5785/9 and E. 5785/10),

which are part of the large correspondence between Khan Selim

Giray (1764-1767) and sultan Kalga (brother of Khan Mehmed

Giray) with the Wallachian voivode, Ştefan Racoviță (1764-

1765).

The T.S.M.A. E.5785/2 document, the letter sent by the

Khan to the Wallachian voivode, dated by the editors “probably

between August and September 1765”, is summarised as follows:

Le Khan avait ordonné de percevoir le tribut annuel de Valachie. Le

voyevode l’informe que son ordre a été exécute. Le tribut a éte versé en

totalité10.

The expression “annual tribute”, bearing the consecutive

connotation of inducing the Wallachian prince to become from

virtual contributor a coherent payer of the tribute to

Bahçesaray, is mistakenly used for the evaluation of reports

established between Tatars and Romanians, between 17th and 18th

centuries. As there is no image of the document within the

volume (the photography is missing, too, from the collection

of microfilms on Turkey from the A.N.I.C., microfilms which10 Ibidem, p. 245-246.

include documents archived at the T.S.M.A.), we may therefore

eliminate the editors’ inaccurate statement by resorting to a

neutral and objective source. In January 1765, the French

consul to Crimea, Fornetti, informed the French Ambassador to

Istanbul, de Vergennes, on the relations of Khan Selim Giray

with the voivodes of Wallachia and Moldova. The information of

the change in connexion on the axis Crimean Khan – Wallachia,

came from the resident in Bahçesaray:

Le Kan de Crimée n’a pas voulu accepter le présents que le Price de

Valachie lui a envoyés, parce’ils n’étaient pas aussi considérables que

ceux qu’on avait coutume d’envoyer à ses prédécesseurs. Ce Prince

Tartare, beaucoup plus intéressé que son prédécesseur, a renvoye le

boyard qui en était porteur sans lui accorder audience et a écrit trés

fortement à la Porte contre ce Prince et contre celui de Moldavie11.

Surprisingly, though, Alan W. Fisher, too – author of

some erudite works on the history of the Crimean Khanate –

came to the conclusion that the Crimean Khans gained annual

tributes from the Ottomans’ lieges – from Wallachia and from

Moldova12. To argument this, A.W. Fisher cited a diplomatic

document from 1581, a printed work in the Hurmuzaki collection

(Documente, vol. I/ supliment 1). However, the mentioned

document – a letter sent from Istanbul, on April 15th 1581,

written by De Germigny and addressed to the King of France –

explicitly concludes that, through his most trusted emissary,

Khan Mehmed Giray (1577-1584) would have stipulated the11 Hurmuzaki, Documente, vol. I/supl. 1, doc. MXL, p. 735.12 Alan W. Fisher, Les rapport entre l’Empire ottoman et la Crimée. L’aspect financiar, inC.M.R.S., t. XIII, 1972, nr. 3, p. 373: Les Khans de Crimée étaient autorisésàpercevoir un tribut annuel des États vassaux ottomans d’Eflak (Valachie) et de Buğdan (Moldavie).Bien que les sommes n’aient jamais été trés grandes, c’était un revenu que les Khans s’efforçaient degarder.

participation of Tatar troops in the Turks’ campaign against

Safavid Persia in exchange of a sum of money, more exactly

Moldova’s annual income and, supplementary, naming his son in

the high office of the sangeacbeğ of Caffa13.

The role and end of the Tatar envoy led by the Khan’s

vizier are divulged in the report written by the imperial

Ambassador Joachim von Sinzendorf, from April 29th 1581. The

Tatar emissary left Istanbul without the accustomed ceremony

and without having gained an increase in the financial

tribute. The Tatar Khan would have wanted an additional sum,

given the great losses undertaken by the Tatars during their

conflict with the Persians, and he also would have expected

their compensation through the sultan’s concession of three

areas: Moldova, Caffa and Demir Kapu14. Based on the accounts

given by France’s representative and by those of the Habsburg

Empire in Istanbul, N. Iorga reached the conclusion that, in

1581, “the Tatars were demanding Moldova in return for their

services in Persia”15.

Our conclusion is that, at the end of 1581, the Tatars

didn’t have any territorial demands on Moldova, and that they

neither sought to include the Moldavian people among their

“tributaries”; this conclusion is based on the content of the

report issued on April 10th, by the Habsburg resident von

Sinzendorf; in this document, the writer narrated in full

detail the nature of the solicitations made by the Crimean13 Hurmuzaki, Documente, vol. I/ supl. 1, doc. CIV, p. 55-56: le grand Tartare àenvoye son premier visir à sadite Hautesse, le quel luy a fait entendre que ledit Tartare demandoit lerevenu annuel de la Bogdannie pour luy et le sangiacat de Caffa pour son fils, aultrement protestaitqu’il n’iroit à la guerre contre le Persien ny moins y envoyeroit gens.14 Hurmuzaki, Documente, vol. XI, doc. CLXXVI, p. 108.15 N. Iorga, Studii privitoare la istoria Chiliei și Cetăţii Albe, Bucureşti, 1899, p. 212.

Khan. In the Khan’s view, in the absence of Turkish tributes,

the training of Tatar troops for their expedition to Persia

could only have been done “if he was to receive Moldova and

Caffa as tribute”. The sultan did not give him the requested

tribute, but did promise a stipendiary of 100.000 florins

(centum milia aureorum florenorum) and military equipment16.

Given the 1581 circumstances, when the very foundations

of the Bahçesaray throne was being shaken by internecine

fights, waken by the members of the Ghiray dynasty, the Khan

really did care for the increase of pecuniary flux into his

treasury, but without forcing the relations with the sovereign

in Istanbul, by risking a demand to take Moldova away from the

Ottoman Porte’s grasp. In a 1977 study analysing the matter of

the Crimean Khan’s separation from under the Ottoman Porte’s

suzerainty, A.W. Fisher justly made the connexion between this

issue and that of tributes demanded by Crimean Khans –

although, the Crimean “separatism” manifested itself plenary

only by the second half of 18th century – but he also added an

apparent tribute paid by the Romanian countries. Here is the

author’s opinion: “it was tradition to allow Crimean Khans to

collect from the Danubian principalities, on a yearly basis, a

tribute established and collected by the Khan’s own

representatives”17.

The renowned historian Halil Inalcık, promoter of the

most solid investigations made into the history of the Crimean

16 Hurmuzaki, Documente, vol. XI, Apendice I, doc. LXXXVI, p. 649.17 Alan Fisher, Crimean Separatism in the Ottoman Empire, in vol. Nationalism in a Non-National State, ed. William W. Haddad, William Ochsenwald, Columbus, 1977, p.63: „was the custom of allowing the Crimean Khans to collect an annual tribute from the Danubianprincipalities, a tribut assigned and collected by the Khan’s own representatives”.

Khanate, listed Moldova, together with Moscow, Poland and the

beys in Circassia in the series of entities from which the

Crimeans would gain annual tribute, on a regular basis18.

The false supposition that the Wallachian voivode,

Constantin Brâncoveanu (1688-1714) would have paid tribute to

the Crimean Khan was strangely „attested” by Mihail Guboglu,

too. The Romanian Turkologist hastily summed the copy of a

sultan’s command, from 1692: “Firman according to which sultan

Ahmed II commands Constantin Brâncoveanu, voivode of

Wallachia, commands boyars and governors in this vilayet to

pay tribute (haradj) both to the Tatar Khan Sefa Ghirai in

Crimea, and to his first councillor called Nu red-Din sultan,

as was common from distant times”19. Leaving aside the fact

that Nureddin was the second heir associated with the throne

holder, placing Constantin Brâncoveanu as haraci payer towards

the Crimean Khan, the serious distortion in this summary was

excluded thanks to Professor Gemil Tasin’s efforts. In his

volume of Turkish documents regarding the relations between

the Romanian countries and the Ottoman Porte, the professor

included, under the date of March 19th-28th 1692, the document

18 Halil Inalcık, Power relationships between Russia, the Crimeea and the Ottoman Empire asreflected titulature, in vol. Passé turco-tatar, presént soviétique Études offertes à AlexandreBennigsen/Turco-Tatar past, Soviet present. Studies presented to Alexandre Bennigsen, ed. Ch.Lemercier-Quelquejay, G. Veinstein, S.E.Wimbush, Louvain, Paris, 1996, p.208: The tribute which the Tatar states received from neighboring countries amounted to asubstantial portion of the overall revenue of the Tatar ruling elit. The Crimeans received tribute fromMoscovy, Poland, Moldavia and the Circassians begs which altogether reached an amount in valueperhaps as much as 100.000 gold pieces a year.19 M. Guboglu, Catalogul documentelor turceşti, vol I, doc. 101, p. 40. The authorused a copy of the document (B.A.R., collection of Turkish documents,DLXXXI, page 32), a copy used at the end of 19th century. The copy comeswith a translation in French of the document. We assume that M. Guboglusummed up the paper by only reading the French version, whose text includesthe term haradj.

summarised by Mihail Guboglu (who had initially dated it to

December 12th-21st 1692). After this erudite and scientific

edition, we reproduce the revealing excerpt from the command

given to the Wallachian prince:

“The Muslim population in Wallachia, paying tribute

and all of the other tributes demanded in my

illustrious commands and which they had to pay,

having agreed to pay, as previously done, the taxes

to Crimean Khans and sultan Kalgai and sultan

Nureddin, wasn’t in any way bothered so far with

demands of payments to be made to other courts and

without illustrious command. But now, the sultans

and the other Tatar leaders in Crimea and Bugeac,

who are chiefs at some posts, ask and take away by

force and unjustly from the Wallachian population,

money and furs and carriages and felts and fabrics

under the pretence of gifts”.

In sultan Ahmed II’s decree, at the end of the document,

he commanded:

“after you will have paid your former tributes, as

you have done in the past, to the Crimean Khan and

to sultans Kalgai and Nureddin, there shall be no

more bothering and oppression with such demands”20.

Having it thus been attested scientifically by Mr. Gemil

Tasin, the document proves and confirms three already

traditional realities within the norms which defined the

financial nature of the tight links between the Crimean

Khanate and the Romanian countries: 1. The Khan, sultan Kalga20 Tahsin Gemil, Relaţiile ţărilor române cu Poarta otomană, doc. 202, p. 414-416.

and sultan Nureddin would cash in “fixed gifts” from Romanian

princes; 2. The “fixed gifts” were received from “past times”,

“from remote times” (there was, therefore, a tradition); 3.

The payment made by the Romanians towards the Tatars was

sanctified through a supreme sanction of the common suzerain,

the Turkish padishah.

The “fixed gifts” came in form of money and were

illicitly taken away from the Romanian countries by the

Crimean Khan; they had no value and denotation of tribute.

From the transliteration of the above cited document, we may

conclude that Mr. Gemil Tasin interpreted and transposed the

Turkish term, the plural virgüler, into the words „fixed gifts”.

Within the same category of documents issued by the

chancellery of the Crimean Khan, 17th-century writers used the

word virgü/vergi not to refer in a syncretic manner to the

equivalent of tribute or haraci, but in order to establish that

the tax included the presents already fixed previously21.

However, until the overwhelming obtrusion of the terms

“haraç” and “ciziye”, in regard to Wallachia’s and Moldova’s

tribute, the Ottoman Empire’s chancellery used the term vergi.

This is how it appears in the act (preserved in T.S.M.A.,

E.6995) dating back to the beginning of 16th century, which

recorded the evolution of the tributes (vergi) paid to the

Ottoman Porte by Wallachian and Moldavian voivodes. The first

editor of this document, published in Romania as a novel,

historian Ismail Hakkı Uzunçarşılı, paraphrased the following:21 Darius Kołdziejczyk, The Crimean Khanate and Poland-Lithuania, doc. 58, p. 948-953 (The Ahd-nâme given by Islam Giray to the Polish King Vladislav IV, inFebruary 1646). The editor translated vergü (lines 15 and 23) with „fixedgifts”, and hedaya with „presents”.

“the voivodes of Moldova, apart from the Ottoman treasury, had

to give vergi to the Khans of Crimea, as well; if during such an

aggression, the Crimean Khan had granted assistance to the

prince of Moldova, this vergi would have been doubled”22. I

couldn’t figure out how and why the Turkish historian arrived

to this curious conclusion, caught up, among others, by Alan

W. Fisher, too.

The official Tatar concept for the tribute gained by the

Khan from the kings of Poland and the great knezes of Moscow,

as results from the Crimean Khans’ yarlıks, is materialised in

the notion of hazine or uluğ hazine, which primarily means

“treasury” or “great treasury”23. In the yarlık addressed by

Khan Mehmed Giray (1641-1644; 1654-1666) to the Tsar of

Russia, Alexei Mihailovici, in the autumn of 1657, the former

reproached his addressee the removal of his emissary (elçi),

Mehmed Shah, sent in mission to get the “fixed gift”. In the

original version of the document published by Gemil Tasin,

Mehmed Shah “had gone after hazine” (hazine içün varan Mehmed Şah).

After the syntagm “fixed gift”, the editor put a questioning

mark and in the foot note he added an explanation: “until the

end of 17th century, Russia, just like Poland, paid an annual

substantial tribute (tiyiş) to the Khanate”24.

Although Tatar and Turkish narrative documents don’t

refer to the tribute received by the Crimean Khans from the22 Ismail Hakkı Uzunçarşılı, Osmanlı Tarihi, vol. II. Istanbul’un fethinden Kanunî SultanSüleyman’ in ölümüne kadar, ed. III, Ankara, 1975, p. 434: Boğdan voyvodaları Osmanlihazinesinden başka Kırım hanlarına da vergi veriyorlardi; eger Kırım hanı bir tecavüz vukuundaBoğdan beyine yardim edecek alursa bu vergi o zaman iki kat alinirdi.23 The term hazine, a term often used as tribute by writers in the CrimeanKhanate’s chancellery, has no identical correspondent in Romanian, torender the meaning in Tatar political vocabulary.24 Gemil Tahsin, Relaţiile ţărilor române cu Poarta otomană, doc. 129, p. 293-297.

Romanian countries, this doesn’t stand for a valid and

perennial argument, and we insist upon the fact that some

Tatar chronicles only mention Russia as tributary of the

Khanate. For instance, Seyyid Mehmed Riza, in the chronicle

entitled “Cele şapte planete călătoare cu veşti despre

stăpânirile tătare” (“The Seven Travelling Planets Carrying

News on Tatar Domination” - Es-seb’a es-seyyar fi ahbar mulük ut-tatar25),

a fresco of the Crimean Khanate, from its founder to Mengli

Giray (1724-1730), but also in the later work of Halim Giray,

entitled “Grădina de trandafiri a hanilor” (“The Khans’ Rose

Garden” - Gülbün-i hanan26), the tribute received by the Khan

from Russia is called “gizia” (ciziye), meaning, according to

Islam, the haraç received from non-Muslim vassals (=

Christians), as capitation, a tax that symbolised, altogether,

the acceptance on behalf of the payer of his statute of

tributary to the suzerain.

The tribute perceived by the Crimean Khan from Poland27

and from Russia28 was the secular consequence of solemn yarlıks

given by previous Tatar khans to the leaders of Lithuania,

Poland and to great knezes (tsars) in Moscow, thus confirming25 Seyyid Mehmed Riza, Es-seb’a es-seyyar fi ahbar mulük ut-tatar, ed. A.K. Kazimbeğ,Kazan, 1832, p. 166.26 Halim Giray, Gülbün-i hanan yahut Kırım tarihi, ed.O. Cevdi, Istanbul, 1870-1871/1287 H., p. 21.27 Darius Kolodziejczyk (The Crimean Khanate and Poland-Lithuania, p. 496-506)depicted a scenery of the tribute and of the “fixed tributes” received fromPoland by Crimean Khans during 1462 and 1742. In the presented table, amongthe sums calculated in florins, in order to show the tribute and the “fixedtribute”, the terms upomynky, skarb podarki, pomynky, bölek, bölek hazinesi, consueta dona,hazine, uluğ hazine, tiyiş, vergii, hedaya, pişkeş appear.28 Anna Horoşkevici (Rus i Krym. Ot sojuza k protivastojaniju.Koneţ XV-nacalo XVI vv.,Moskva, 2001, p. 225-258), in discrepancy with Tatar diplomatic documents,but also with Russian documents, where the tribute was called pominki, theauthor considers that Moscow had sent tribute, called vihod, only up until1502, with the exception of the short period of time during 1670 and 1685.

their ruling over some defined territories. Until the present

day, no such yarlık was found to have had as political

beneficiary either of the leaders of the Romanian Medieval

entities, although probably and most likely such acts were

issued by the descendants of Cengiz Khan during the

indisputable domination of Tatars over Moldova, Transylvania

and Wallachia.

It is obvious that, in various circumstances, the Crimean

Khans demanded money and gifts from the Romanian princes.

Official documents issued by the chancellery of the

Ottoman Empire and by that of the Crimean Khanate show that

the keepers in Bahçesaray had cashed “fixed gifts” from

Wallachia and from Moldova, not as suzerains of the Romanian

princes, but as powerful military leaders who could offer

protection and support against possible internal and external

enemies, or they could stop and avoid possible crossings by

Tatar armies over populated areas, crossings which would have

brought material and human damage among the autochthons East

of the Dnestr.

The first aspect and its occurrence are shown in a

document from 1566. When Süleyman the Legislator (1520-1566)

got involved in his last campaign against the Habsburg Empire,

and the Moldavian voivode, Alexandru Lăpușneanu (1563-1568)

was threatened by an invasion from claimants sheltered in

Poland, and a guard of 200 janissaries was there to guard the

prince’s court, on April 26th 1566/ 6 şevval 973, the sultan gave

imperial order to seek peace between Devlet Giray (1551-1571)

and the Moldavian prince. Here is the order (hüku) addressed

to the Moldavian voivode (Boğdan), reproduced almost in its

entirety:

“In a letter merrily sent to the nest of my

happiness (âșiyan sa’adetime), His Highness Devlet Giray

Khan let us know the following: when he had brought

support into Moldova, in a purse (tezkere) bearing a

seal, which he sent to you, he demanded, according

to an old custom, that you double his annual tribute

(vergi), and so you were to send the double now; you

not only omitted giving what was asked of you, but

you imprisoned the man who had brought you that

purse. Therefore, the above mentioned, His Highness,

since he had come with Tatar army to help Moldova, I

ask you this: why won’t you send him the tribute

(vergi) which is usually given to the Khan and to

which you yourself ran into debt? I command you to

send His Highness’ share, the share you owe

according to the custom, without further delay, once

you receive this great order”29.

The epilogue of the episode recounted by the Empire’s

command in the spring of 1566 left no trace in the documents,

but it is without a doubt that Khan Devlet Giray obtained the

plenary achievement of the material engagements assumed by

Alexandru Lăpușneanu as a price for the cooperation of the

Tatar military.

29 Biblioteca Academiei Române, manuscript collection, Colecţia documenteturceşti, DL XXX, page 18a. Document summarised by M. Guboglu, Cataloguldocumentelor turceşti, vol. II, doc. 121, p. 43.

In a 1597 yarlık (only preserved in Latin), addressed by

Gazi Giray to Mihai Viteazul (Michael the Great), in reply to

a message sent by the Wallachian voivode, we could read the

following excerpt:

“From the very beginning, Transylvania, Moldova and

Poland have lived in great friendship with the

Tatars and often have offered gifts30 to the Tatars,

but you have not given me anything as yet, although

I am powerful enough to subordinate and lead these

three countries as I please.

(Ab initio Transalpina, Moldavia et Polonia semper cum Tartaris

familiarissime vixerunt saepeq<ue> munera Tartaris offerebant, tu

autem haetenus mihi nihil plane obtulisti, cum ego ea dignitate

gaudeam ut haec tria Regna iuxta arbitrium meum dispanam ac

gubernem)”31.

However, the document also discloses the material role of

the Khan’s request, since the sender was engaging himself that

his Tatar armies would not cross over Wallachian territory

during the year, and thus they would not damage Wallachian

inhabitants. It’s clear that the money demanded by the Khan

was practically a “tax for protection”. I quoted this

clarifying document also because the situation during 1593-

30 The noun munera in the Latin text – from munus/muneris – besides itsmeaning as a gift offered to someone, also bears the meaning of task,obligation, burden.31 The Latin version found at Archivio Segreto Vaticano, Fondo Borghese,serie III, 89 D, page 192. The photocopy is found at A.N.I.C., microfilmcollection, roll 78, take 91-92. The German version (slightly different)was printed in Hurmuzaki, Documente, vol. XII/1, doc. CCCCXXVIII, p. 286-287. The Latin version, together with its translation, was published in thevolume Mihai Viteazul în conștiinţa europeană, vol. 5, Mărturii, București, 1990, doc.68, p. 144-146.

1606, the period of the so-called “longest war”, is very

similar to what happened during 1683-1699 regarding the

position of the Crimean Khanate towards the Romanian

countries; the two are different periods during which the

Ottoman Empire engaged in an overwhelming war with the

Habsburgic Empire. In this last period, however, Constantin

Brâncoveanu frequently offered money to the Tatar khans and

leaders, while Wallachia found itself on the shortest course

between Crimea and fighting arenas engaged by the Ottomans

with Habsburgic rivals, with the objective of not only

limiting the current sackings made by the hands of Tatars, but

also to fulfil targets contrary to his Istanbul suzerain. A

particular case, resembling bribery, is unveiled by

historiographer Mehmed Giray. As part of Sa’adet Giray’s

entourage (March-December 1691), the Tatar historiographer

recounts that, in 1691, the Khan had received from Constantin

Brâncoveanu, as a sign of devotement, 5-10 bags of money. The

stimulant was offered because, through the guides he provided,

the Wallachian voivode had crossed the Tatar troops through

overland routes, in jag, with many stages and slow marches32.

Constantin Brâncoveanu’s voluntary stratagem – for which he

was accused by the historiographer of conducting hypocritical

collaboration with the Ottoman’s enemies – was successful, and

the Tatars’ dalliance in Wallachia deprived the Turks of the

Tatar assistance in the confrontation they had lost with the

Habsburgs, in Salankemen. The beneficiary of the money come

from the Wallachian voivode, Sa’adet Giray did not overcome

32 Uğur Demir, Târîh-i Mehmed Giray, Istanbul 2006, p. 44-45.

the disaster suffered by the Turks at the end of 1691, and was

relegated for incompetence.

Due to the rare findings of these documents, we cannot

depict a picture of the evolution of the tributes gathered by

the Crimean Khans from the Romanian princes. Nonetheless, the

money from the tributes given by Wallachian and Moldavian

voivodes to the leaders in Bahçesaray and the Tatars’ rank and

fashion, did not measure the significance – as perceived by

the donor – of the tribute, aiming at stroking the ego and

pride of Crimean Khans, by silently admitting their descension

from Gengiz Khan. Obviously, the Crimean Khans gave it another

perception, more so as they would evaluate and take into

account regular and official gifts sent by the Ottomans, as

tribute33.

The analysis of the documents used during the research

also reveals another conclusion, that the Romanian princes

would conclusively amalgamate fractions and money quotas and

call them by the generic term “tributes”, therefore, gifts and

offers given to Tatar Khans.

33 Victor Ostapchuk, Svitlana Bilyazeva, The Ottoman Northern Black Sea Frontier atAkkerman Fortress: The view from Historical and Archaeological Project, în vol. The Frontiers ofOttoman World, ed. A.C.S. Peacock, Oxford University, New York, 2009, p.137.