The New Document About the Bulavin Uprising (1708)

Introduction. A new source on the history of the Bulavin Uprising of 1707–1709 is published: a report of the Azov Governor I.A. Tolstoy to the Ambassadorial Chancery of December 8, 1708, which is stored in the Russian State Archive of Ancient Acts. It was sent in response to a request for an order about the Gulyashiy Chelovek (Freeman Wanderer) Grigory Zaitsev, nicknamed Banshick (Bath Attendant), accused of aiding Kondraty Bulavin. Analysis. Despite the brevity of the presentation, the document is very informative. It contains information about the events that took place in Cherkassk and Azov in June 1708. New details are reported about the organization of the rebel-led campaign against Azov, about Ataman K.A. Bulavin’s hopes for support from the Azov residents and soldiers, about the conspiracy against him in Cherkassk, etc. No less important is the data on how the preliminary investigation of state crimes (participation in a rebellion) was conducted at the Ambassadorial Chancery in the second half of 1708. On the example of the G.K. Zaitsev’s case we see that the investigation, which started because of a denunciation, was carried out in accordance with the norms of procedural law adopted at that time and was accompanied by the collection of evidence. At the same time, the paper is a source of biographical information about the person under investigation, who unwittingly became an agent of the Cherkassk’s conspirators and an informant of the Azov governor. Methods. The publication is prepared in accordance with the applicable rules of archaeography. Results. The published document allows us to verify some other sources introduced into scientific circulation earlier, and extends the knowledge available in science about the culmination of the Bulavin Uprising

Mius Campaign of Palatine A. P. Saltykov of 1698

The article reconstructs the history of the campaign of the Ryazan Razryad Regiment (Discharge Corps) in the North-Eastern Azov Sea area – the most poorly studied operation of the Russian-Turkish War of 1686–1699 based on the archival material. The specific dates of the campaign, the number and composition of the troops participating in it, their exact route is determined. The goals of the military expedition were to protect the region and build a port and a fortress on the northern coast of the Azov Sea. It is shown that the Mius Campaign of 1698 had an exclusively demonstration and colonization value

Azov v strategicheskikh planakh tsaria Petra I 1695–1696 gg.

The article analyzes the causes and goals of Peter I’s Azov campaigns. The author concludes that the generally accepted interpretation of this issue in historiography is hypothetical in nature and based on an a priori equivalence of the campaigns’ goals and results. The purpose of the campaigns was to deliver a tangible blow to the Ottoman Empire: getting access to the sea was the result of the capture of Azov. It is shown that J. Rousset de Missy, a Dutch publicist of the first half of the eighteenth century, stands at the origins of the historiographic tradition that connects the idea of owning Azov with the ambition to develop maritime trade in Russia. The universal constructions of the philosopher K. Marx played an important role in consolidating this scheme in Soviet historical science. The idea of organizing the Azov campaigns, based on the previous experience of military-political relations between Russia and the Ottoman Empire in the seventeenth century, probably belongs to the tsar himself. The opinion that the author of this idea was the Ukrainian Hetman I.S. Mazepa has been declared insolvent. The author presents new information and arguments confirming that the planning of the Azov campaign began no earlier than the end of 1694.L’article analyse les raisons et les objectifs des campagnes d’Azov de Pierre Ier. L’interprétation généralement admise de cette question en historiographie est hypothétique et basée sur l’équivalence présumée des objectifs des campagnes d’Azov et de leurs résultats, mais pour l’auteur le but de ces campagnes était de frapper durement l’Empire ottoman, l’accès à la mer étant une conséquence de la prise d’Azov. L’auteur démontre qu’un publiciste hollandais de la première moitié du xviiie siècle, J. Rousset de Missy, est à l’origine de cette tradition historiographique qui associe l’idée de posséder Azov à la volonté de développer le commerce maritime en Russie. Les constructions universelles du philosophe K. Marx ont fait le reste dans la consolidation de ce schéma dans l’histoire soviétique. C’est probablement le tsar lui-même qui, s’appuyant sur l’expérience antérieure des relations militaro-politiques entre la Russie et l’Empire ottoman au xviie siècle, eut l’idée d’organiser les campagnes d’Azov. La thèse selon laquelle l’hetman ukrainien I.S. Mazepa aurait la paternité de ces dernières est dénuée de tout fondement. L’auteur présente de nouveaux éléments qui confirment que la planification d’une campagne visant Azov n’a pu débuter, au plus tôt, qu’à la fin de 1694

Russian-Turkish Official Contacts in the Azov Sea Region in the Summer of 1699 (to the Prehistory of the Mission of Envoy Extraordinary Yemelyan Ukraintsev)

The article examines official contacts between the Russian Tsardom and the Ottoman Empire in the Sea of Azov Region during the preparation of the embassy of Y.I. Ukraintsev to Constantinople in 1699. The parties were represented by officials who did not have diplomatic status: Admiral F.A. Golovin, who arrived in Azov and the Beylerbey of Kefe Tatar Murtaza Pasha, who was in Kerch. The Azov Palatine (Governor) participated in organizing communication between them, within the framework of the so-called border diplomacy. The Armistice of Karlowitz established in 1699 and the mutual hope for concluding a long-term peace served as a favorable background for the development of bilateral relations at the local level. It is shown that, largely thanks to successfully conducted negotiations, including through envoys and correspondence, the admiral and the beylerbey managed to organize a temporary stay in the Kerch Strait for a squadron of the Azov Fleet and the dispatch of a Tsar’s Envoy to Constantinople on a Russian warship. The source base for the study consisted mainly of archival documents, some of which were introduced into scientific circulation for the first time

The New Document About the Bulavin Uprising (1708)

Introduction. A new source on the history of the Bulavin Uprising of 1707–1709 is published: a report of the Azov Governor I.A. Tolstoy to the Ambassadorial Chancery of December 8, 1708, which is stored in the Russian State Archive of Ancient Acts. It was sent in response to a request for an order about the Gulyashiy Chelovek (Freeman Wanderer) Grigory Zaitsev, nicknamed Banshick (Bath Attendant), accused of aiding Kondraty Bulavin. Analysis. Despite the brevity of the presentation, the document is very informative. It contains information about the events that took place in Cherkassk and Azov in June 1708. New details are reported about the organization of the rebel-led campaign against Azov, about Ataman K.A. Bulavin’s hopes for support from the Azov residents and soldiers, about the conspiracy against him in Cherkassk, etc. No less important is the data on how the preliminary investigation of state crimes (participation in a rebellion) was conducted at the Ambassadorial Chancery in the second half of 1708. On the example of the G.K. Zaitsev’s case we see that the investigation, which started because of a denunciation, was carried out in accordance with the norms of procedural law adopted at that time and was accompanied by the collection of evidence. At the same time, the paper is a source of biographical information about the person under investigation, who unwittingly became an agent of the Cherkassk’s conspirators and an informant of the Azov governor. Methods. The publication is prepared in accordance with the applicable rules of archaeography. Results. The published document allows us to verify some other sources introduced into scientific circulation earlier, and extends the knowledge available in science about the culmination of the Bulavin Uprising.</jats:p

The unique drawing of the Zaporozhian Sich and the Kamenny Zaton fortress of the beginning of 18th century

The paper presents and analyses the undated drawing of Zaporozhian Sich and Russian fortress Kamenny Zaton (Stone Bay), completely unstudied before. The drawing was made at the beginning of 18th century and has preserved in collection of Malorossiysky prikaz (Little Russia Office) in the Russian State Archive of Ancient Acts. Using methods of source criticism and historical geography authors attribute the drawing and conclude that it can be connected with the special mission to Sich, headed by Stol’nik (Steward) Fedor Protasyev and the General Esaul of Zaporozhian Host (Cossack Hetmanate) Ivan Skoropadsky in 1703. The main goal of the mission, that is studied on the base of new archive sources, was to oblige Zaporozhian Cossack to take an oath to the Peter I in return for tsar’s salary. Authors also analyzes in details the drawing itself, describing at the same time the process of building of the Kamenny Zaton and correcting the timeline of it, including the foundation date of the fortress. It appeared that Kamenny Zaton had earthen fortifications only, as the Russian government didn’t manage to build stone ones. The picture of the Kamenny Zaton on the drawing was made in the orthogonal projection as quadrilateral bastion fortress, whereas in reality it had five bastions. The Zaporozhian Sich is pictured as symbolical agglomeration of buildings with gable roofs and four towers. Considering technical and stylistic characteristics of the document it can be identified as the Russian geographical drawing, the unique artefact that reflects and visualizes the history of Russian colonization of the lower Dnieper River territories in the beginning of 18th century.</jats:p