Hungarian Noblewomen, Polish Rider, Turkish Slave (17th c wood cut) |
In
1538 sultan Süleymân annexed the Black Sea litoral fortress of Cânkermân/Özü and laid claim to all the lands between
the Dniester and Dnieper Rivers deep into the Pontic Steppe. This caused immediate
tension with the king of Poland-Lithuania, Zygmunt I, who also claimed
ownership of those lands. After a failed attempt to demarcate a common border
in 1542, further negotiations devolved into a mediation of unchecked violence
in the new Ottoman/Polish-Lithuanian frontier zone. While the Ottoman sultan
continued to support and profit from the enormous Black Sea slave trade, which
saw the disappearance or death of some 2,000,000 individuals in
Poland-Lithuania and Muscovy between 1500-1700, Zygmunt I’s frontier commanders
immediately set about staging their own raids on Ottoman settlements in the
frontier.[1]
Theft
and its sister crime of abduction were the root causes of most acts of frontier
violence. One common occurrence involved raiders from the Polish-Lithuanian
side making their way into the disputed frontier zone of the Pontic Steppe and
attempting to catch Ottoman travelers unawares as they journeyed between the
Ottoman Black Sea ports of Akkermân, Câkermân and Caffa, making off with goods,
captives, and livestock. In this instance, on 12-20th April 1547
[21-29 Safer 954 H.], Süleymân sent a
letter to Zygmunt I complaining of an attack on his subjects as they traveled
from Akkermân to Caffa. The victims were attacked by the Polish-Lithuanian
border commander Bernard Pretwicz at a place called “sihâkli” [صحاقلک].[2]A damage register compiled by Yüsuf bin İlyas, the kadi of Akkermân, was sent
along with the sultan’s letter.
Bernard Pretwicz |
The
letter followed the typical practice of paraphrasing the contents of the
register. However, there were discrepancies between the information contained
within the sultan’s letter and the enclosed damage register. While the padişah condescended to mention specifically
items such as the copper pot [bakraç]
stolen from one İsmail
bin Hacı Satılmış, three victims present in the register
were not even mentioned by Süleymân. The sultan may have chosen to focus on the
more important individuals who were named specifically and declined to mention
the unnamed akinci (irregular infantryman)
or the other travelers mentioned in the register.
The
register, in fact, describes the losses suffered by different individuals
during what appears to have been three separate incidents.[3]
These incidents were accorded their own entries. Thus, “(An individual by the)
name of Sabânci Ahmed, a pious laborer, was on the road with his goods along
with his brother and his brother’s wife, six horses, and other goods, (when he
was fallen upon) and robbed.” Likewise, “Mustafa of Bursa was taken prisoner
along with two slaves.” Greater detail was also furnished in both the damage
register and the sultan’s accompanying letter in a related case concerning a
group of seven heavily armed merchants accompanied by an akinci, all of whom were assaulted, the sultan claimed, by the
notorious Polish-Lithuanian frontier commander Bernard Pretwicz, the “terror tartarorum”.
Damages claimed by the Ottoman travelers:
Hüseyin bin Boyacı Hacı
Slave boys: 3
|
Slave girls: 2
|
Furs: 2
|
Cloth: 1
|
Turban: 1
|
Horse tack: 1
|
Quiver with
bow and arrows: 1
|
Saddle: 1
|
Horses: 2
|
Akinçi
Slave Girl: 2
|
Horse: 1
|
Saddle and
tack: 1
|
Sword: 1
|
Fur covering:
1
|
Akçe: 180
|
Mehmed
Akçe: 3,000
|
Other loot:
1,000 akçe
|
Red scarlet
cloth jacket [dolama]: 1
|
Turban: 1
|
Sword: 1
|
Shirt: 1
|
Cape [kepenek]: 1
|
Silver chased
sheath with a knife: 1
|
Horse: 1
|
Saddle: 1
|
Süleymân
Embroidered
brocade kaftans: 3
|
Scarlet red
cape [çüka]: 1
|
Arabian horse:
1
|
Saddle: 1
|
Turban: 1
|
Sword: 1
|
Damascus
stone: 1
|
Cape [yapınc]: 1
|
Ismail bin Hacı Satılmış
Circassian
slave boy: 1
|
Circassian
slave girl: 1
|
Cloth worth
100 akçe
|
Akçe 1060
|
Saddle: 1
|
Lathering
Musk: 1
|
Tobacco: 3
|
Fur: 1
|
Felt caps: 15
|
Cape [yapınc]:
1
|
Copper
pot: 1
|
‘Ali
Slave boy:
1
|
Slave girl: 2
|
Horse: 1
|
Saddle and tack: 1
|
Quiver with bow and arrows: 1
|
Sword: 1
|
Blue cloak: 1
|
Akçe:
400
|
El-Hac Isa
Akçe:
8,500
|
Silk lodre: 4
|
Bursa sashes: 8
|
Bunches of knives: 12
|
Foreign furs: 1
|
Cloak [ferace]:
1
|
Cotton twill borlu: 6
|
Cloth rolls: 10
|
Bow with arrows: 1
|
Knife: 1
|
Emîr Yüsuf
Akçe:
10,000
|
Arabian horse: 2
|
Moldavian horse: 1
|
Cloak [ferace]
with fur mantle: 1
|
Cloak [şemle]: 1
|
Horse tack: 1
|
Arabian saddle: 1
|
Seals attached to damage register. |
The
Ottoman damage register describing this incident provides a unique account of
what Ottoman subjects chose to take with them on the dangerous paths of the
Pontic Steppe during the middle of the sixteenth century. The travelers were
evidently robbed of whatever valuables they carried, including eleven slaves in
total and in some cases the horses that they were riding at the moment of the
attack. Most of the victims appear to have been carrying some items for trade;
slave children [esîr gulâm, esîr cariye],
felt caps [arakiye], tobacco [tönbeki],
furs [kürk], lathering musk [misk köbük], various textiles, quantities of knives
[bıçak deste], sashes from Bursa [Bursa kuşağı], and cash
were all listed as losses. Furthermore, the victims appear to have been well
armed, and reported swords, knives, and bows as lost items. Arabian and
Moldavian horses were taken, along with saddles [eyer], tack [oyân],
turbans [dulbend], and a variety of
outerwear [şemle,
ferace, çüka,
kaftān, gömlek,
kepenek, dolama] that
may been on the victims when they were robbed. The seven merchants and their
accompanying akıncı were not taken
captive and appear to have been left naked and horseless in the steppe.
While the travelers do not appear to have been immediately compensated for their losses, Süleymân eventually brought a powerful case against the Polish-Lithuanian frontier commander Bernard Pretwicz in 1550 accusing him of orchestrating years of violence against Ottoman subjects in the frontier. Pretwicz appeared in person before the Polish parliament and king Zygmunt II August that year in order to speak in defense of his actions. He blamed the Crimean Tatars and direct Ottoman subjects of the frontier for launching slave raids in the king’s lands and robbing and rustling from Polish-Lithuanian subjects in the frontier. This particular band of Ottoman subjects was not mentioned specifically in the litany of violence that Pretwicz was pleased to claim responsibility for in the defense of the realm. It is easy to see, however, how this small group of armed Ottoman subjects accompanied by their slaves traveling through the frontier was set upon by Pretwicz as he enthusiastically combed the steppe for groups that fit this description.
While the travelers do not appear to have been immediately compensated for their losses, Süleymân eventually brought a powerful case against the Polish-Lithuanian frontier commander Bernard Pretwicz in 1550 accusing him of orchestrating years of violence against Ottoman subjects in the frontier. Pretwicz appeared in person before the Polish parliament and king Zygmunt II August that year in order to speak in defense of his actions. He blamed the Crimean Tatars and direct Ottoman subjects of the frontier for launching slave raids in the king’s lands and robbing and rustling from Polish-Lithuanian subjects in the frontier. This particular band of Ottoman subjects was not mentioned specifically in the litany of violence that Pretwicz was pleased to claim responsibility for in the defense of the realm. It is easy to see, however, how this small group of armed Ottoman subjects accompanied by their slaves traveling through the frontier was set upon by Pretwicz as he enthusiastically combed the steppe for groups that fit this description.
Select Bibliography:
Dziubiński, Andrzej. “Polsko-Litewskie
napady na Tureckie Pogranicze Czarnomorskie w Epoce Dwu Ostatnich Jagiellonów”,
Kwartalnik Historyczny, 1996, 3, p.
53-86.
Veinstein, Gilles. 1986. “L’occupation
ottomane d’Oč akov et le problème de la frontière lithuano-tatare (1538-1542)”,
in: Lemercier-Quelquejay, Veinstein, Wimbusch [eds.], Passé turco-tatar present soviétique: etudes offertes à Alexandre
Bennigsen. (Paris: Editions de l’Ecole des hautes etudes en sciences
sociales), p. 221-237.
Veinstein, Gilles. “Prélude au Problème
Cosaque: à travers les registres de dommages ottomans de années 1545-1555”, Cahiers du Monde Russe et Soviétique. 1989. Vol. 30, p. 329-361.
[1] This rather modest estimate
was proposed in: Kołodziejczyk,
Dariusz. "Slave hunting and slave redemption as a business enterprise: The
northern Black Sea region in the sixteenth to seventeenth centuries". Oriente Moderno. 86 (2006): 149.
[2]
For the original Ottoman document see: AGAD.AKW.dz.Turecki.68.105.
[3]
For the original Ottoman document, see: AGAD.MK.dz.Tatarski.60.57.61.