Disarmed, Naked and Horseless in the Steppe.

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 12-20^th 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.

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.

Sefer Muratowicz and the Armenian Connection: trans-imperial subjecthood and diplomacy between Poland, Persia, and the Ottoman Empire

Listen to the podcast via The Wild Field:

Armenian merchant and Ottoman subject Sefer Muratowicz emigrated to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in the late 16th century. Soon after, he appeared before Safavid Shah ‘Abbas I as the personal envoy of King Sigismund III Vasa on a royal diplomatic mission unsanctioned by the Commonwealth’s parliament. Though the trajectory of Sefer Muratowicz’s life is not without precedence in the heterogeneous social milieu of Poland-Lithuania, his documented involvement in the private royal embassy of 1601-1602 to Safavid Persia presents an exceptional view into the critical role of the diasporic Armenian population in the diplomatic and economic relations between Europe’s largest republic and the Islamic world in the early modern period.

Throughout most of the 16^th century, a period otherwise characterized by intense regional conflicts, the maintenance of peaceful relations was a critical element of both Polish-Lithuanian and Ottoman grand strategies. This situation began to change, however, after the subsequent election of Sigismund III Vasa (r. 1587-1632), as the pro-French, Ottoman-friendly faction within the greater body of Commonwealth citizenry was confronted by the staunchly Catholic king’s desire for rapprochement with the Ottomans’ most potent enemy— the Habsburgs. Sigismund III, acting in accordance with historical attempts of Christian rulers to ally themselves with distant Persia against more proximate Islamic polities, viewed the Safavids as a potential ally in any future wars with the Ottoman Empire. Significantly, Safavid Shah ‘Abbas I had embarked on a diplomatic scheme in 1599 by sending his envoys to contact eight separate Christian rulers, including the King of Poland-Lithuania, in hopes of establishing an anti-Ottoman alliance. The failure the Persian embassy to arrive in Warsaw due to the purported intervention of the Muscovite Tsar appears to have prompted Sigismund III to send Sefer Muratowicz to the Safavid court. Upon his return to Warsaw in 1602, the Armenian merchant-cum-envoy left an account of his journey.

The shifting balance of power in the Black Sea region at the turn of the 17^th century offers fertile ground to expand the role of trans-imperial subjects within the unique political structures of the region. These individuals “straddled and brokered political, linguistic, and religious boundaries” (Rothman, 2009), serving as key interlocutors between the major regional powers of East/Central Europe and the Black Sea region; the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Holy Roman Empire/Hungary, Muscovy, the Ottoman Empire, and Safavid Persia. Although the populations of these polities were remarkably heterogeneous, they were dominated by Catholic, Orthodox, Sunni, and Shi’a religious systems respectively, and were further differentiated by disparate political structures drawing from diverse traditions of jurisprudence. Sefer Muratowicz, an Armenian merchant native to Anatolia who came to reside in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth royal city of Lwów, successfully navigated not only the vast geographical distances between Warsaw, Caffa, Istanbul, and Isfahan, but also the different sociopolitical spaces governed by these polities.

Muratowicz’s legal position within the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was determined by his membership in the sizeable native Armenian community located in major centers of trade operating mainly along the Polish/Ottoman frontier. As a subject of both the Ottoman sultan and the king of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Muratowicz inhabited liminal social and legal zones offering opportunities for advancement through his collaboration with power brokers in return for his unique abilities and personal connection to the diffuse Armenian ecumene that stretched from the Atlantic to the Pacific in the early modern period. In the context of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth society at the turn of the 17th century, Sefer Muratowicz acted as an agent in the protracted struggle between royal and parliamentary power. By privately engaging a member of the Armenian community through Krzysztof Dzierżek, the royal translator and former resident of Istanbul, King Sigismund III Vasa effectively circumvented his parliament’s legal right to determine the Commonwealth’s foreign policy and re-opened dormant channels of communication with the Safavid Shah, ‘Abbas I.

Sefer Muratowicz came to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth from the north Anatolian Ottoman village of Karahisar. He first arrived in the city of Lwów in 1597 by way the Ottoman Black Sea trade port at Caffa and the via tartarica trade route stretching over the Pontic Steppe into the heart of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. In the late medieval and early modern periods the Armenian population of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was deeply involved in trade with the Ottoman Empire, the Crimean Khanate, and Persia. Early waves of Armenian immigrants had their roots in the Crimea and spoke a Kipchak Turkish language until the end of 17th century. Taking advantage of these strong linguistic, cultural, familial and economic links, the Polish kings began to regularly employ individuals like Sefer Muratowicz as court translators, information gatherers, and couriers to the Ottoman Empire, Safavid Persia, and the Crimean Khanate as early as 1414, when a certain Grzegorz the Armenian took part in the first Polish diplomatic mission to the Ottoman Sultan.

After his initial arrival in Crown Polish territory, Muratowicz worked with other local Armenians

Carpet purchased by Muratowicz,
bearing Polish coat of arms

intrade with the Ottoman Empire. As a legal subject of the Sultan, Muratowicz was able to petition the Ottoman envoys to advocate on his behalf at the royal court in Warsaw. In 1601 King Sigismund III sent Sefer Muratowicz to Safavid Persia as his personal merchant and royal envoy. Muratowicz’s destination was stipulated by his contract with the King; under the rule of Shah ‘Abbas I, the city of Kashan was a key entrepôt for the Persian silk trade throughout the 16th and 17th centuries, and served as an ideal location to commission and purchase the King’s items. Several rugs purchased by Muratowicz can still be found in the Residenz-Museum in Munich. It is evident, however, that there were ulterior political motives behind Muratowicz’s sojourn in Safavid lands; the desire to ensure open and regular contact with a potential ally against the Ottoman Empire was the main reason that the king sought to re-open friendly relations with Persia. Sefer Muratowicz’s status as a trans-imperial subject of both the Polish king and Ottoman sultan, as well as his skills as an experienced merchant, allowed him to operate effectively in the vast distances between Warsaw and Isfahan, and he proved to be an ideal agent to deliver the king’s subtle message of friendship to Shah ‘Abbas I.

By engaging the services of this agent, the king pursued his own political agenda vis-à-vis two of the Commonwealth’s main rivals, the Ottoman Empire and Muscovy, by entering into dialogue with the Safavids. The most critical event that this document is connected to is Shah ‘Abbas I’s attempt in 1599-1600 to send an official embassy to “the princes, potentates and republics of Europe” in hopes of establishing an anti-Ottoman alliance. To this end, letters and gifts were prepared for the leaders of eight Christian states, including the King of Poland-Lithuania. The mission was led by the Persian ambassador Husayn ‘Ali Beg Bayat and the English soldier of fortune Anthony Sherley, who had recently appeared in the Shah’s court along with his brother Robert. The Safavid embassy of 1599 and was immediately beset with difficulties. Traveling north to Astrakhan and on to Moscow, the delegates were forcibly detained by Tsar Boris Godunov for a period of five or six months. When the Tsar released them, they traveled north to the port of Archangelsk, rather than directly overland through the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and took ship. The mission eventually made land in Stettin after two months of difficult Arctic Sea travel.

Add caption

In the end, the only rulers to officially receive the Persian embassy were Emperor Rudolf II, Pope Clement VIII, and King Phillip III of Spain. Apropos to the story of Sefer Muratowicz’s 1601 mission is the question of why the Persian embassy never made it to the court of Sigismund III. Once in the presence of ‘Abbas I, Muratowicz explained that Tsar Boris Godunov intentionally held the Safavid embassy captive and made Anthony Sherley promise that he would not visit the court of King Sigismund III before releasing the envoys and sending them on to Archangelsk. Sherley’s captivity in Muscovy is well attested to in numerous sources written by members of his party, though none mention the Tsar’s demand that the mission avoid the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. As the Shah’s embassy continued on its long, difficult journey through Europe, Sefer Muratowicz arrived in the Persian court. There ‘Abbas I learned from Muratowicz that his letters and gifts to King Sigismund III had never arrived. The Shah then questioned Robert Sherley, who knew of his brother Anthony’s confinement in Moscow. Robert Sherley stated that the Tsar let Anthony go only after receiving his promise to bypass the Polish-Lithuanian court.

The case of Sefer Muratowicz shows how widespread familial and personal contacts amongst the greater Armenian diaspora, and the knowledge of several key languages, allowed trans-imperial subjects to operate successfully in different sociopolitical milieus. We learn that the Safavid Vizier Tachmas, who initially presented Muratowicz to the Shah, was an Armenian and a Christian by birth who had never before met Sefer, but had “…heard all good things about him from his brothers, who were good friends.” It is unlikely that Muratowicz would have been chosen to lead the royal trade mission and royal embassy to Persia without a connection to notable individuals with that territory. It is therefore possible that the Vizier Tachmas was indeed a familial acquaintance of Muratowicz, whose position allowed the visiting Armenian access to the Shah’s court. The history behind this relationship can only be speculated upon, though Muratowicz’s knowledge of Turkish and Persian, both of which were in use in the court of ‘Abbas I, speaks to the young merchant’s personal connection to both Ottoman and Safavid lands. His linguistic capabilities made a positive impression on the Shah; in the Relacyja, ‘Abbas I is recorded as saying “I am not as content with any of [the Christian envoys] as I am with this one, with whom I am able to speak my own language, because through translation speech has no taste.”

The most peculiar portion of the Muratowicz’s account deals with the Shah’s relationship to Christianity. The author writes boldly of ‘Abbas I’s feelings towards the Christian faith, claiming that the Shah had been secretly baptized and desired the conversion of his entire nation. The naiveté of this notion is deep, though it reflects a larger notion present in Christendom’s vision of a Muslim ruler whose tolerance towards his Christian subjects was widely renowned. Pope Clement VIII, acting upon similar reports bearing witness to ‘Abbas I’s purported inclinations towards conversion, sent a brief to the Shah, as well as his mother, relating his joy at this news on February 24th, 1601. Additionally, a small detail contained within this passage appears in other contemporary sources; Muratowicz’ description of an ornamental crucifix worn by ‘Abbas I appears in several non-related accounts left by French and Italian observer in the Persian court. The religiosity of ‘Abbas I is further attested to in Muratowicz’s account of the leader’s departure on his famous 1601/1010 pilgrimage to Shi’a holy site in Mashhad

The immediate effects of Sefer Muratowicz’s unofficial mission to the Shah are evident in the revival of diplomatic activity between the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Safavid Empire. In 1605, the Shah’s envoy, Mehdi Kuli ben Turkman, arrived in the Polish court in Warsaw with news of the Shah’s victories over the Sultan. It was hoped that this would entice the King into joining ‘Abbas I in an anti-Ottoman coalition. The parliament still desired peace with the Ottoman Empire, however, and the king became occupied with the Zebrzydowski rokosz (legal rebellion) in 1607. In 1609, another Safavid embassy arrived in Kraków, this time led by Robert Sherley, the brother of Anthony Sherley. He delivered two letters from the Shah proposing an anti-Ottoman coalition involving Spain, England, France, the Holy Roman Empire, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Muscovy. The plan proposed by the Shah suggested that the combined Christian forces rendezvous with the Persian army in Aleppo. Sigismund III had recently renewed peace with the Ottomans through the envoy Grzegorz Kochanowski, however, and could only offer his personal friendship to the Shah.

Bibliography:

1. Aslanian, Sebouh David. 2011. From the Indian Ocean to the Mediterranean: the global trade networks of Armenian merchants from New Julfa [Berkeley: University of California Press].
2. Nadel-Golobič, Eleonora. 1979. "Armenians and Jews in Medieval Lvov: Their Role in Oriental Trade, 1400-1600." Persee.
3. Niesiołowski, Kazimierz. 1743. Otia Publica Vix Domestica, [Vanities, Public and Domestic]. (Warsaw)
4. Połcyzński, Michael. 2014. “The Relacja of Sefer Muratowicz: 1601-1602 private royal envoy of Sigismund III to Shah ‘Abbas I”. The Turkish Historical Review, 5. [Leiden: Brill]
5. Rothman, Natalie. 2009. “Self-Fashioning in the Mediterranean Contact Zone: Giovanni Battista Salvago and his Africa Overo Barbaria (1625)” in, Renaissance Medievalisms, Eisenbichler, Konrad (ed.) [Toronto: Centre for Reformation and Renaissance Studies]
6. Szuppe, Maria. 1986. “Un marchand du roi de Pologne en Perse, 1601-1602”, Moyen Orient et Océan Indien 3.    

Posted by:
 Michael Połczyński, doctoral candidate at Georgetown University. For more on author see: academia.edu

Seljuks on the Baltic: Polish-Lithuanian Muslims in the court of Kanunî Sultan Süleyman I

Listen to the podcast on The Wild Field 

Kanuni Sultan Süleyman 

In 1558 three Muslims from Poland-Lithuania left their homes and set out on hajj. Their journey to the holy cities of Mecca and Medina took them south to Istanbul where they were approached by Grand Vizier Rüstem Pasha and asked to write an account of the history and condition of the Muslim community in Poland-Lithuania for Sultan Süleyman I. As one of the largest integrated, legally protected Muslim populations living in Christian Europe during the early modern period, Poland-Lithuania’s Muslims, called “Lipka Tatars” in later times, had a unique relationship with the most proximate and powerful Muslim power, the Ottoman Empire. The “Risâle-i Tatar-i Leh” (Polish Tatar Account) was composed with the help of scholars from the Ottoman court and attempted to address the problems of a Muslim people that chose to settle in non-Muslim lands and that were compelled by historical legal and social obligations to fight for Christian princes, at times against their fellow Muslims.

With the help of their Ottoman ulema redactors, the Polish-Lithuanian Muslim authors of the Risâle developed a legitimizing historical narrative of their own settlement that was grounded in contemporary sensibilities of the Ottoman court. Gâza, millenarianism, and a fascinating hybridization of Polish/Ottoman historical myths of origin were employed in order to deny the Tatar ancestry of Poland-Lithuania’s Muslim nobility in favor of a dual Chingissid/Seljuk heritage linking them directly to the Ottoman dynasty and other powerful Islamic regimes. The ultimate solution to the separation of Poland-Lithuania’s Muslims from the dar al-Islam, and more immediately the immoral conflict between Muslims that occurred whenever Poland-Lithuania and the Ottoman Empire were at war, was for Süleyman to extend his shadow to the north and conquer Lehistan.

Muslims began to settle in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Kingdom of Poland before the reign of Osman I (1258-1326), the progenitor of the Ottoman dynasty, and continued to do so throughout the early modern period. Most came during times of conflict within the Golden Horde and its successor state, the Crimean Khanate, though Muslim prisoners of war were also forcibly settled. Rights to land and other privileges were given in exchange for military service, leading to the stratification of Muslim society between noble and non-noble populations. In the late 14th century Catholic Poland and pagan Lithuania were joined in a personal union under the newly baptized Lithuanian monarchs.

The authors of the Risâle described early Muslim settlement under pagan Lithuanian Grand Dukes in the 14th century as a form of gâza, or holy war aimed at the spread of Islam. Rather than betraying the directives of their faith for personal gain or security, the renegade settlers coming from the Hordes were in fact expanding the bounds of the Islamic world. For the audience of the Risâle, gâza was a powerful ideological tool used to legitimize the sovereignty of the Ottoman dynasty and an integral unifying factor for the orthodox Sunni military class of the Ottoman society. Further explanation offered for the settlers’ choice to align themselves with non-Muslim rulers was the high regard of Lithuanian and Polish leaders for the martial prowess of Muslim warriors as well as for the Islamic faith itself. Though they may have been unbelievers, the Risâle consistently portrays the monarchs of Poland-Lithuania as righteous leaders that respected to manifest superiority of the Islamic faith.

Foremost amongst these historical non-Muslim sovereigns mentioned in the Risâle was the pagan Grand Duke Vitold (1350-1430), who is portrayed as a saint-like figure venerated by Polish-Lithuanian Muslims. “The name of the king, who was like a pillar supporting Islam in the lands of the infidels [gâvur], is Vitold, whose memory is preserved up to our present age, as every year there is a day reserved to memorialize this king. Muslims living in this country gather in temples on this day and his name is recalled with reverence.” The details of this unusual ritual, memorializing a pagan convert to Latin Christianity, are unknown. Despite the alleged magnanimity of Vitold, the choice of the Polish-Lithuanian Muslim authors’ ancestors to settle in the land of the unbelievers caused them some remorse; “Our ancestors, always longed for those countries where our faith and our customs have a blissful abode. They were resigned, however, to their existence, and willingly surrendered to God’s purpose.”

The authors of the Risâle invoked the “Sarmatian” myth of origin of the Polish-Lithuanian noble estate alongside a parallel myth linking local Muslim nobles to both the Seljuk Turks and Genghis Khan. The Risâle informed the Ottoman court that the Lehs (Poles) “descend from a warlike nation in ancient times, from which they derive valor and strength. In fact, they are valiant in war, and the greater part of their people have a brave demeanor, full of life and movement, and when you see one on a horse you will think that you see a resident of the blessed realms of the Prophet.” By incorporating the Sarmatian narrative in their description of Lehistan (Poland), the Risâle’s authors reinforced the Polish-Lithuanian nobility’s belief in a common descent, as an estate, from Sarmatian tribes inhabiting the Pontic Steppe in antiquity. Sarmatism manifested in a powerful unifying ethos expressed through normative cultural practice amongst the multi-confessional Christian nobility, regardless of individual geographical/ethnic identities, reinforcing a sense of equality through mythological lineage and the legitimate leadership of the nobility vis-à-vis the peasantry and urban populations.

           

Polish Riders, 16th c.

It is evident that the Polish Lithuanian co-authors of the Risâle, who were very likely Muslim noblemen, had internalized the Sarmatian myth. They could not, however, partake in it directly. The social stratification of Polish-Lithuanian society created clear distinctions between noble and non-noble Muslims. Noble Muslims were not included within the “Sarmatian nation”. "Tatars" were thought by Poles to descend from the Scythians, another steppe culture of antiquity. The authors of the Risâle developed a parallel myth of origin for Muslim nobility that claimed both Seljuk and Chinggisid origins for the Muslim nobility of Poland-Lithuania. The text informs its readers that the ennobled portion of the Muslim population of Poland-Lithuania were not Tatars at all; “in this country they call us Tatars, though the bulk of us do not come from those ruffians, who are always held in the greatest contempt by Muslims, but rather from the noble and valiant line of the Seljuks, the ancestors of the Ottomans.” This alleged relation to the Seljuk Turks created a de-facto kinship with the Ottoman dynasty, binding them to a historical narrative that lay at the root of Ottoman sovereignty. Non-noble urban Muslims of Poland-Lithuania, on the other hand, were described as descending from common Tatars of the Hordes. The authors’ distaste for Tatars was linked to the unsettled lifestyle of contemporary Tatars of the Crimean Khanate and Hordes; “we neither camp in tents, nor do we wander the steppes. But in (Lehistan) it is all the same; if someone professes a faith other than that of the idolaters [mushrık], they call him a Tatar”. It should be noted that, aside from this text, there is no historical record indicating that Polish-Lithuanian Muslims claimed Seljuk descent.

The alleged Seljuk patrimony of Muslim nobles of Poland-Lithuania was further elevated by emphasizing historical familial connections to Chinggisid Khans Jochi, Batu, and Tokhtamish. Unlike the Seljuk myth, there were Chinggisids amongst Polish-Lithuanian Muslims. Chinggisid descent was a legitimizing narrative supporting the rule of numerous dynasties in the Muslim world, including the Ottomans vassal Giray Khans of the Crimea. This was well known in the 16th century, as the Girays owed their power, in part, to Lithuanian patronage and support during the wars of succession that began their reign, and which witnessed a wave of Muslim settlement in Lithuania.

Alexander as "zu'l karneyn"

For the authors of the Risâle, the ultimate solution to the problematic status of Polish-Lithuanian Muslims, bound as they were to fight fellow Sunni Muslims at the command of their Christian monarchs, was for Süleyman I to conquer and convert Lehistan. In the first half of Süleyman’s rule, both in popular and elite circles, there arose a powerful eschatological notion of Ottoman sovereignty linked to the impending close of the first millennium of the Islamic world and the spread of the Islamic world under Selim I and Süleyman I. The authors of the Risâle-i Tatar-i Leh partook in this narrative by using titles such as zu'l karneyn (Alexandrine world conqueror) and the notion that the Sultan was the żill Allâh (shadow of God on earth). While the authors of the Risâle did not seek to create an explicit relationship of patronage between Süleyman I and the Muslim population of Poland-Lithuania, they implied that it was the Sultan’s responsibility and fate to conquer Poland-Lithuania and bring the local Muslim population back into the fold.

The authors indicated that the multi-confessional and relatively tolerant nature of Polish-Lithuanian society would fascilitate the spread of Islam in those lands. “If there were more frequent relations with the Sublim Porte, it may ensure that the Islamic faith would spread in those lands... From (Lehistan) it is apparent that there is no similar country where there might be so many ways to praise Allah. Here there is no faith that may have any aparent advantage over the others, and elsewhere amongst the infidels it is forbidden that Muslims settle and live.”


Regardless of the sincerity of this request, posed as it was by unknown members of a rather famously tolerated and loyal European Muslim minority community whose descendents still exist today, the Risâle-i Tatar-i Leh provides an opportunity for Ottomanists to reconsider the political and social influence that the Ottoman Empire exerted on neighboring European societies. The Polish-Lithuanian Muslim community may have been the largest in Christian Europe by the mid-16th century, and yet we know very little about their relationship with the Ottoman state. Amidst inventive settlement narratives and myths of origin, it is clear that the authors’ vision of the Ottoman Sultan’s role in the lives of Polish-Lithuania Muslims was not purely aspirational; it was critical to the immediate endeavor of the hajji authors. While the Padishah may not have been the Polish-Lithuanian Muslims’ legal sovereign, he exercised ultimate control over their ability to perform a critical obligation of their faith; “to kiss the Ka’aba and see the grave of the Prophet.” The Risâle therefore sought to affirm the sanctity of Süleyman’s supremacy over the entire world, and in particular his role as protector of all Muslims, partly legitimized by his title as Khalif and fascilitation of the hajj. It is clear that without the Sultan’s generosity, clemency, and patronage during the hajj, the Muslim community of Poland-Lithuania could never hope to fulfill the duties that were central to their Islamic faith.


Select Bibliography:

1. Danecki, Janusz, “Literature of the Polish Tatars” in: Górak-Sosnowska, Katarzyna (ed.) 2001. Muslims in Poland and East Europe: widening the European discourse on Islam. [Warsaw: Zakład]
2. Fleischer, Cornell. 1992 “The Lawgiver as Messiah: The Making of the Imperial Image in the Reign of Süleyman” in: Soliman le Magnifique et Son Temps, ed. G. Veinstein [Paris: La Documentation Française]
3. Klein, Denise. 2012. The Crimean Khanate between East and West (15th-18th century). [Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz]
4. Kopański, Ataullah Bogdan, “Muslim Communities of the European North-Eastern Frontiers: Islam in they Former Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth”, in, Marcinkowski, Christoph [ed.] 2009. The Islamic World and the West: Managing Religious and Cultural Identities in the age of globalization. [Zürich: Lit.]
5. Muchliński, Antoni. 1858. Zdanie Sprawy o Tatarach Litewskich przez Jednego z Tych Tataròw Złożone Sułtanow Sulejmanowi w Roku 1558. [Vilnius: Teka Wileńska]

Posted by:
Michael Połczyński is a Doctoral Candidate at Georgetown University. For more on the author see: https://georgetown.academia.edu/MichaelPołczyński