The Science Work
History
Site is for sale: mail@thesciencework.com
Category: History

The initial stage of adaptation of the Don Cossacks in the territory of the Crimean khanate (1708-1712)



BBK T3 (2P37)511

The INITIAL STAGE of ADAPTATION of the DON COSSACKS in the territory of the CRIMEAN KHANATE (1708 - 1712)

© 2008. D.V. Sen

Krasnodar state Krasnodarsky State Historical-archeological museum-reserve,

historical and archaeological memorial estate, 350000, Krasnodar, Gymnazicheskaya St., 67 350000, Krasnodar, Gimnazicheskaya St., 67

Adaptation practicians in the territory of the Crimean khanate (Kuban) of the Don Cossacks forced to recede there from Don in August, 1708 are considered. The conclusion about the strategic nature of such retreat caused by logistics of the Bulavinsky revolt is drawn. The attention is focused on ability of I. Nekrasov, the ataman of Cossacks, to find a common language with khans and Nogais. Besides, the conclusion is drawn on undoubted connection of successful adaptation of the Don Cossacks with their active participation - as a part of the Crimean Tatar troops - during the Russo-Turkish war of 1710-1711

The article is devoted to adaptation practices of Don Cossacks in Kuban (region of Krym Khanate), where they retreated from the Don region in August 1708. The author concluded that strategical retreat was caused by the logic of Bulavin & s rebellion. The article emphasized Ignat Nekrasov s talent to communicate with Krym Khans andNogays. Successful adaptation of Don Cossacks gave an opportunity to take part in Russian-Turkish War (1710-1711) on the side of Krym Khanate troops.

The offered article continues a cycle of publications on studying a large-scale scientific problem "The Cossacks of Don and the Northwest Caucasus in the relations with the Muslim states of Black Sea Coast" [1]. A part of questions already received the lighting in a number of works of the author and other researchers (B. Bouka, V.I. Milchev, O.G. Usenko, N.A. Mininkov), a part - needs additional study. Not least the prospects of scientific search depend on the answer to a question of the status of stay of Cossacks in Right-bank Kuban, their responsibility for the anti-Russian actions not as the fugitives disappearing also from the power of khans here, but, on the contrary, as the people realizing impossibility of so broad maneuvers out of recognition of citizenship in relation to Gireyam. First, it is necessary to tell that emergence within the Crimean khanate (Right-bank Kuban) of the group of the Don Cossacks run by I. Nekrasov and some other associates of K.A. Bulavin at the end of August - the beginning of September, 1708 became fulfillment of the plan which is in advance prepared to Dona [2]. Soon for I. Nekrasov's Cossacks who came over Don under the Lower Chir to "the Nogai side" and further into Kuban the pursuit was organized. V.V. Dolgorukiy who asked the same question the prince to P.P. Khovansky wrote about need of its organization to murza of Ayuki-hana and Kalmyks of prince. Direct performers of this command were Kalmyks who returned soon with anything said that they "in a type of those thieves' Cossacks did not steal anywhere" [3, page 330]. The second turn of a pursuit containing 1,000 people also did not bring success to persecutors. Informing on it in the Order of the Kazan palace in September, 1708, the prince P.P. Khovansky not without justification and after to V.V. Dolgorukiy's words noted: "And it is notable that they left into Kuban or to Agrakhan" [3, page 330].

Thoroughness of a plan of K.A. Bulavin about leaving most likely into Kuban realized now And. Hekpasocial adaptation, ataman Nekrasov&s, nogaitsi, Gigereev and Osmans& dysovym, is confirmed by the analysis of characteristics of one more group of the insurgents who battled against chasteners on August 23, 1708 of r. near Panshin of the town. It turned out that together with Cossacks there were members of their families and also a wagon train "about one and a half thousand carts", apart from 8 iron and copper guns. Question speeches of the Cossacks taken prisoner revealed that "those thieves' Cossacks went is Panshina to a meeting in Blue to the thief to Ygnashke Nekrasov" [3, page 330]. Defeat of this group of the Don Cossacks caused the accelerated withdrawal of group of I. Nekrasov from the Golubinsky town down Don, a crossing on its Nogai side and the subsequent arrival into Right-bank Kuban. Most likely the situation was thus - into Kuban it was necessary to leave at any cost; hundreds of Cossack families managed to escape from punishment; any influential colleague of K.A. Bulavin from among other leaders of insurgents - either I. Nekrasov, or I. Pavlov, or I. Loskut, or S. Bespaly was not also seized. Thus, it is possible to believe that this event would come true under any conditions connected with possible defeat of insurgents and it is competent to consider, in the author's opinion, it as the Outcome - Cossacks left in family, "in 2,000 people, z wives and z children, ostavya burden and having abandoned the belongings" [3, page 327]. Important and the fact that then, at the end of August, 1708, into Kuban Nekrasov was followed by wives as the foreman F.V. Shid-lovsky specifies, the Cherkassk Cossacks who suffered persecution [3 page 344]. By the way, the Russian government and Peter I assumed the probability of such succession of events.

We will emphasize that nobody then could give security guarantees to Cossacks, beginning from governing in the Crimea Kaplan-Girey to "old" Kuban Cossacks, in the recent past - also natives with Don [4]. Approximately in the same conditions there were Zaporizhia Cossacks who came over to the side of the Crimea in 1709. As writes

V.I. Milchev, special pleasures concerning appearance of these unexpected visitors were felt by neither Turks, nor the government of the Crimean khanate as this unauthorized action was fraught with foreign policy aggravations with Russia, etc. [5]. Appropriate here too to remember the words of the historian S.M. Rıza that an act Kaplan-Girey concerning the Don Cossacks from I. Nekrasov's group became one of the reasons of his shift from a throne in 1708 [6].

Therefore risks of stay in the territory of the Kuban possession of the khan for Cossacks were very high that emphasizes once again sharpness of the events which were taking place a little earlier to Dona, degree of irreconcilability of the parties. By the way, the fact of violation of a body of the dead of K.A. Bulavin made by order of Peter I can be interpreted from positions of the maximum punishment over the enemy, namely: from the point of view of the tsar it was "absolutely reasonable" to deprive of rest to a shower of the enemy, having dismembered his body on a part. As A.A. Bulychev writes, such ways of an execution burial (along with burning, drowning in water elements and so forth) were symbolically treated from address positions with bodies executed as with outcast deceased, doomed to eternal sufferings beyond the grave, considering them as dirty or "zalozhny dead men" [7]. Conscious application by royal chasteners of "a water execution" with the purpose to doom the risen Cossacks to posthumous torments, prepared to "zalozhny dead men", demands the most attentive studying experts. The fact that after Esaulov's falling of the town of prince V.V. Dolgorukiy ordered to quarter and put "on a necklace" marching ataman of insurgents and also two "aged men of roskolshchi-k" attracts attention [3, page 327].

Not less (the same paradigm) scientists have to show consideration for the analysis of the opposition played between the Don Cossacks who are forced out to the Caucasus and the Cossacks who remained to Dona at the end of the 17th century. The heat of events then was such is that Cossacks - "traitors" with amazing persistence killed royal messengers. Business reached that "faithful" Don Cossacks refused to execute royal commands about transfer, for example, to agrakhansky Cossacks, diplomas with flatter offers. The way of burial by Cossacks of the Caucasus of the "foes" killed by them - drowning of corpses in water attracts attention. So, in 1689 the godmothers-sky Cossacks killed and sent in water a body of the representative Voysk of the Don S. Bezpaly sent by F. Minayev for their admonition [8, page 8]. In 1690 the same Cossacks who are forced out from Don at the end of the 1680th captured the next messengers after what "beat their dryuchy and bodies... performers of a debt of service abandoned in water" [8, page 9]. The working hypothesis of the author consists in that, as communication of these actions with a cult of "zalozhny dead men" as unnatural (violent) death "mother of cheese earth" refused to accept the dead is quite probable here. As on a number of representations of east Slavs at the bottom of a reservoir there is hell and in general water - those elements by means of which it is possible to do the dead man in, such "care" of souls of "zalozhny dead men" testify to mental tension among Cossack nonconformists once again. As to the abnormal place of burial we find the similar attitude towards water elements in folklore of Cossacks-nekrasovtsev just at the description of the events connected with prosecution by their Russian troops (another thing is that it is possible to argue on the place of these events - Kuban or Don). It seems that researchers did not pay attention to this certificate: "Went so to the Black Sea on plavnyam, on canes... If dithat what begins to cry, then mothers ordered to throw di - those into water. Women did not want to do that, closed mouths to babies, and they choked, died, so and carried dead babies with themselves" (our italics. - Of S.) [9, page 160].

Adaptation of Cossacks-nekrasovtsev began, undoubtedly, with overcoming psychophysical consequences of that transition, shock it seems for them, to Kuban, from positions is aggravated the need perceived at the same time to find a shelter for the shelter first of all of children and women. Events and circumstances of this process - the low-developed aspect of studying history of formation of the Kuban Cossacks in the territory of the Crimean khanate in the 18th century. All case of materials which researchers have nowadays allows to claim that I. Nekrasov's Cossacks made the choice very quickly and voluntarily, it appears, not without participation (influence) of the first Kuban Cossacks who got to themselves protection and protection from outside Gireev at the end of the 17th century. The author already wrote about temporary stay of group of I. Nekrasov to Zakubanye approximately prior to the beginning of 1712 when, for example, I.A. Tolstoy reported on the basis of operational data that "thieves and traitors Ignashka Nekrasov with a tovaryshcha and live hitherto beyond Kuban near Cherkes in Allavat's yurta of a murza" [10, l. 15 about.]. New data allow to specify localization of this area that can help researchers in the solution of a number of questions connected with study adaptation the practician of Cossacks in the territory of the Crimean khanate, their relation to opportunities of the safe stay in the region. It is not necessary to speak about idealization of the relations with Nogais. So, the certain Cossack sent from Kuban from "thief Nekrasov" showed that "their Kuban owners want to send" [11, l. 24]. And question speeches of nekrasovsky Cossacks, for example, for October, 1710 contain data on unsteadiness of situation in Kuban of I. Nekrasov's supporters who are "in the power of the Crimean khan" [11, l. 23].

So, according to the updated data (first of all on V.N. Sokurov [12] works) it is possible to believe that Allavat-murza is Allakuvat-Semiz (Fat), zakubansky Nogai prince of the Urakovsky branch of descendants of Kasaya (Small noga), the grandson Horashaya Urakova, and yurtas of this part of Nogais in the 17th century was on the left coast of Kuban at the Laba River. At the beginning of the 18th century he was a leader I will tell lies-zovtsev whom scientists even of the second half of the 18th century localized "on the left side of Kuban at the Laba River" (I. Georgi, 1799). The same is confirmed by archival documents: in 1762 in the analysis the management

Donskoy's troops of a situation of that time in Kuban are mentioned the auls wandering up Laba called "Na-vryuz Ulu" [13, l. 84].

It especially is important for scientists that to Kazyev's Tatars of the ulus the khan ordered at the time to help the first Kuban Cossacks to build the town to Entre Rios of Kuban and Laba [14, page 34]. Therefore, it is possible to speak with confidence that I. Nekrasov's group chose the place of the stay around historical accommodation of the first Kuban Cossacks, natives from Don where, as we know, those by this time did not live any more, having massively moved from there in Kopyl, and then to Taman. This fact - the direction of a way of nekrasovets most likely to this town - is one more, however, indirect confirmation of a conclusion of the author [2, page 83] about proximity compatriot (religious?) communications of Cossacks of I. Nekrasov and the "old" Kuban Cossacks asking, by the way, in 1709 of the Crimean khan not to give Russia these "new" Cossacks. Anyway I. Nekrasov managed to find then for the group the safest place - on the outskirts of the Crimean khanate, in lands navruzovets whose some part could express discontent with the next appearance of Cossacks.

This security, let and not eternal, allowed to develop probably to I. Nekrasov and his associates large-scale work on propaganda to leaving into Kuban of Cossacks from Don and also to avoid aggravations of a situation of their possible delivery Devlet-Girey II which declared to the Russian messenger V. Blekly: "... what to give me, chevo at me is not present. I to it (to Nekrasov. - Of S.) refused and the decree sent that it in the Crimea and on Kubana was not, otkuda and as came, so and left" [10, l. 13]. In December, 1708 P.A. Tolstoy was informed from the brother (ambassador in Turkey) I.A. Tolstoy that "Kuban residents" accepted I. Nekrasov who "incessantly sends from himself to the sea both to Azov and under the Azov towns for theft is obvious." [15, l. 470 about.]. Then, for example, nekrasovets plundered at the sea (Azov?) work people, having captured a part them. Also the fact that in the fall of 1708 Nekrasov began to transfer the messengers "seducing" local Cossacks to leaving into Kuban to Don is not casual. It is unlikely it is possible to suspect of carelessness of the Zaporizhia Cossacks who decided to go in the spring of 1711 not only "on the different cities", but also "to the thief Nekrasov" [16, page 104] whose Cossacks they not once met in Ukraine. Nekrasovtsam, of course, there was no reason to deceive these and other Cossacks, the danger of their delivery of Russia obviously decreased by this time, and they master new resources in Kuban, for example, build boats. Not without reason in question speeches of July 12, 1711 fluent (from the Turkish fleet which is near Azov of the fleet) the Greek it was said that "from Kuban 50 boats wanted to be from Nekrasov, only at it (the fleet. - Of S.) did not happen yet" [16, page 269].

The result to the first years of stay of Cossacks-nekrasovtsev in Kuban was impressive already on the ground that the Russian authorities were seriously disturbed by a possibility of continuation of "bulavinshchina" on the lands subject to the khan. In Office, for example, the Kazan and Astrakhan governor P.M. Apraksin with special assiduity was brought together by data on activity of the nekrasovsky emissaries to Dona acting "for indignation and to slander to attract and others to local thieves to run into Kuban" [17, l. 16]. Let's emphasize that the known Kuban campaign of 1711 of P.M. Apraksin not least was defined how sources testify, need of protection from "tatarev the Crimean and Kuban thieves' Cossacks" [11, l. 8]. To nekrasovets the choice of the place of the settlement allowed to take place very quickly the initial stage of adaptation, to accustom, face (means, to learn new social experience) the local Nogai community and probably to find realization mechanisms with them the contractual relations. Points the fact that very soon after the arrival into Kuban the Cossacks-nekrasovtsy began to leave very far from the dwellings to it, meanwhile as the nature of their family leaving from Don is obvious.

Fast registration also the contractual relations of Cossacks with the same Devlet-Girey found, probably, II, and already during the Russo-Turkish war of 1710-1711 (is final, however, Russia and Turkey only under the contract of 1713 "were measured" then) the Cossacks-nekrasovtsy who pressed "old" Cossacks of Kuban took active part in it on side of the Crimea. So, in Bakhmutsky voyevodsky office (October, 1712) follows from indications of the captured Zaporozhets of L. Vasilyev that "Sech nowadays costs in the natural boundary Kardashin, from the Crimea in one day a horse. Koshev the thief Kostya Gerdeenko consists, and at him and Cossacks Don are found which kupno with Nekrasov left." [18, l. 87 about. - 88]. During campaigns to Ukraine and other Russian lands the nekrasovets captured prisoners, and the fact of participation in sharing of a polon also suggests them an idea of stabilization of their situation in Kuban. So, characteristic probably history occurred in 1711 when, according to testimonies of the inhabitant of Leontyev of Buyeraki (versts at 50-60 from Troitsk), nekrasovsky Cossacks, working in the union with the Kuban Tatars, ruined and burned the village where "it is full including its, Ivana, took and brought into Kuban and roses - divided on different auls, and others sold to Turks on penal servitudes" [19, l. 374]. Participated kaza-ki-nekrasovtsy and on other directions not less actively. So, the Cossack Zaporozhets caught in 1713 said on interrogation in Poltava that else in 1711 the nekrasovets participated in a joint campaign of "the Kuban horde" and them, Zaporozhetses, on the Kuma River where they stood under five cities from where the krymets and nekrasovets headed by I. Nekrasov went under Azov [20, l. 1]. Special attention should be paid on the unique certificate confirming the mediated role of Ottomans in processes of further adaptation of Cossacks-nekrasovtsev in the territory of the Crimean khanate. It is about the report of the major general Shidlovsky of the January 28, 1711 addressed to F.M. Apraksin: "And all sheets reach to Kiev that on our shelves Nekrasov with a horde will be, not only our shelves so intend that to ruin and burn out all and Belgorod category; before the sultan so promised to make (i.e. Ignat Nekrasov. - of S.) what many gift received for" [16, page 40].

Thus, already in the earliest stage of stay of Cossacks-nekrasovtsev in Kuban dated 17081712 bases of their relations with the local Nogai community ruling in the Crimea the house Gere-ev, sultans of Turkey, "old" Kuban Cossacks and also a basis for a sacralization of I. Nekrasov's identity probably and the joint Kuban (hansky) Cossack army which became the first ataman are formed further. It is interesting to track in the future the biography of I. Nekrasov whose nonconformism sources in relation to many participants modern to it events, representing Russia, trace the roots back in the end of the 17th century, time of "religious wars" for Dona. It turns out that, according to quickly collected data (May, 1708), I. Nekrasov was an ordinary Cossack in. Blue "and in a thieves' plan with Kostkoyu which on-before this left to Agrakhan for theft and to a revolt was" [21, page 125]. In sources of the end of the 17th century mentions of several Konstantinakh (Kostya-yakh), however, Cossacks kumsky from which meet, however, the community of Cossacks on the river Agrakha-ni partially "ate" people. It is quite possible that the speech in this case (the speech about May testimonies of Cossack S. Kulbaki in 1708) goes about echoes of the event which happened in the fall of 1691 when the Caucasian Cossacks led by the ataman S. Zhmura committed an assault on the Don towns, calling those for resettlement to Agrakhan: "To us here on the Agrakhani River to live not closely. To us favor basurmana better you orthodox Christians show" [14, page 32-33].

However the destiny defined to Nekrasov to remain in the Caucasus several years later, and then "during Azov to a campaign it. brought fault for what on forgiveness and punishment to it is made" [21, page 125]. Subsequently, living in the territory of the Crimean khanate, Nekrasov headed the Cossacks for participation in the military campaigns Gireev more than once, having won fame of the successful ataman whose characteristics obviously differed from the world of ordinary people. It is represented that the sacralization of an image of I. Nekrasov (investment with its lines of the wizard, the person wonderfully escaping hitmen and in general expecting the future and so forth [9, page 153, 156]) developed on the same bases as it happened to persons of other famous atamans - S. Razina, E. Pugacheva also related to practicians of sorcery, communication with evil spirit [22, page 374]. But historical memory of Cossacks prepared for Nekrasov a special fate, considering his role in rescue and, therefore, the new Beginning of life in Kuban of nekrasovsky community, i.e. estimating him in fact as demiurge and progenitor. Mythological consciousness to the best advantage treats even such sacrilegious step of the ataman as a shot to a banner about the image of a cross, casting of guns and bullets from crosses and bells [9].

It is undoubted that the bases to these processes lay also in the field of the profanny world, for example the real events connected with constant luck of the ataman. First, as it is already known, Peter I did not manage to achieve from the khan and sultan Ahmet III of personal extradition of I. Nekrasov (of course, together with his Cossacks), and personal orientation of inquiry of Russia

it is obvious [2, page 81-82]. Let's refer only to one document (is revealed them more), namely to the words of the royal messenger V. Blekly told them in a conversation with the vizier of the Crimean yard in 1709: "... when hanov the grace did not show such love for the party of royal majesty that its, the thief (Nekrasov. - Of S.) to give obviously with all and to give its one though about the sky-lshimi people (our italics. - Of S.), and the others to the decree to gain" [10, l. 7]. Then the danger hung over the Kuban Cossacks during temporary domination in Kuban of Bakhty-Girey who decided to give suddenly in 1717 to the Kalmyk governor Chapterzhap of all nekrasovsky Cossacks with wives and children who got was in captivity - "only he Nekrasov with easy people with sorokjyu went to mountains." [23, l. 1 about.].

Sometimes, the ataman was also taken prisoner, for example, during one of campaigns with Tatars on Kabardians he was wounded and captivated, and his then grebensky Cossacks, the same Old Believers, as well as nekrasovets helped out [8, page 28]. Facts of this sort took place and further, finding a symbolical reflection in historical legends by nekrasovsky Cossacks which, no doubt, begin to be created already in the territory of the Crimean khanate. In the context of the described events it is logical to expect finds in archives of documentary confirmations to the sending facts to I. Nekrasov of hitmen which are available in nekrasovsky folklore [9, page 155]. It is also possible to tell about certain "abnormality" of process of the described sacralization, considering existence contradictory (by the time of leaving of Cossacks from Don) the principles of the attitude of the Don Cossacks to the atamansky power. Not without reason M.A. Ryblova writes that "any redundancy is perceived by traditional community as threat to its existence (due to violation of a certain general norm), and owners of excess wealth, disputes. Good luck - as vampires, jamming others (the surplus can be only a part of a share of another)" [22, page 377]. On the other hand, it is possible to note that the sacralization of an image of the identity of I. Nekrasov had character of "single application" - it was not postponed, for example, for his son Mikhail or other atamans of the Kuban (hansky) Cossack army.

Can bring a number of certificates of scientists on the closest attention of Ottomans and representatives of the Turkish administration in Black Sea Coast to the group of the Cossacks which got long-term loyal and even caring attitude of ruling Crimean khans. So, in 1711, by data A.D. Bachinsky, the sultan government suggested the Kuban Cossacks to move in borders of the Ottoman Empire [24]. Approximately in the middle of the 18th century (till 1753) the sultan will helped Cossacks to resolve a question of finding of the priest by them; then they appealed to Istanbul, and the sultan ordered to the Crimean archbishop Gideon to impose in a hierarchal dignity of Cossack "candidate" - the monk Feodosiy that that, despite initial refusal, then executed under the threat of use of violence in relation to itself(himself) the Turkish pasha and group the Janissar [25]. History, characteristic of the same paradigm of the relations of Cossacks with supreme authority of the Ottoman Empire, occurred

in Istanbul in 1755. Then the merchant from Little Russia I. Vasilyev met in Istanbul on a visit at the merchant E. Pirozh-nikov of the Kuban Cossacks who came with the letter to the sultan [26, l. 2] and asking Pirozhnikov about the translation of this message into Greek. Then Vasilyev and his brother priest began to dissuade Cossacks from this step, promising Elizabeth Petrovna's forgiveness owing to what Cossacks were allegedly inclined to that, having solved, however, "for the most useful to them council, and from all Kuban army (our italics. - Of S.) consent and in volume of confirmation to go to Kuban" [26, l. 2 about.]. This certificate is the indisputable proof of existence at Cossacks of the Crimean khanate of the army organization [2, page 38-41].

Even more "personal" relations connected the Kuban Cossacks-nekrasovtsev with a hansky dynasty Gere-ev whose citizens Cossacks were. It is characteristic that else "old" Kuban Cossacks had an opportunity directly to address the khan in case of oppression by their Kuban Nogais or local administration, always receiving the result desirable to itself [14, page 35]. Nekrasovtsa also chose a way of the faithful attitude towards ruling khans that among the other bases and defined their mass participation in military campaigns of the Crimean khanate, but not "zipunsky", thieves', i.e. unauthorized attacks on the outskirts of Russia, fraught with punishment and delivery to tsars. It is obvious that khans held nekrasovets on exclusive situation and Cossacks excellently understood it, by no means, however, without abusing such condition of the relations with Gireyami (at the same time it is impossible to call community of the Kuban Cossacks monolithic, for example on the issue of return to Russia). So, in 1756 the nekrasovets sent the messengers to the Crimea to the new khan Hakeem Weight, complaining of oppressions of the mountain people and asking to move on residence to the Crimea [27, l. 312 about.]. Resettlement it took place in 1758 - the khan lodged Cossacks to the Crimea at "the fish lake" - Balaklava Bay [28]. Even earlier, in the 1730th, the khan Mengli-Girey sent to Kuban the special messenger with the offer to pass to residence into the Crimea. By the way, this khan kept around probably as bodyguards, one hundred nekra-sovets led by the centurion A. Cherkes [29]. Nekrasov-tsy dared to refuse then, at the same time having said: "Egda from Kuban the Kuban residents to the Crimea will not go to wander, and they nekrasovets to the Crimea to live will not go" [30, l. 214 about.]. Cases when nekrasovsky Cossacks acted in the campaigns directed by khans or that, of course, was more often, other relatives of the khan were frequent, and sources always distinguished this group from other components of army.

Therefore by no means not indisputable S.S. Andreyeva's conclusions are represented that Cossacks-nekrasovtsy submitted not to the most Crimean khan, but to the Kuban seraskir, more precisely, that conclusion which at the same time is allowed, - allegedly and will follow this relative of the ruling khan the analysis of the rights and duties of nekrasovets in the territory of the Crimean khanate from the submission fact [31]. Following such logic, into question it is possible to call stay of lands of Right-bank Kuban in

structure of the khanate, and seraskir to assimilate to the feudal princelings samoupravstvuyushchy in the region without thinking about the Crimea and Turks. The loyalty of the Kuban seraskir in relation to the crowned relatives in the Crimea, of course, periodically left much to be desired, but khans never missed opportunities to deal shortly quicker with "creeping opposition" of seraskir that did not change the general alignment of forces in the region - the Supreme sovereign of both Nogais, and Cossacks, and many other monks of Kuban was considered and was the ruling Crimean khan. Thus, it is not possible to agree with the point of view of S.S. Andreyeva as in that case very free treatment is gained also by the political history of Kuban as integral part of the Crimean khanate throughout centuries. That width for maneuver which was found at the organization of the internal public life nekrasovsky Cossacks in 1708 (and in the next years), was caused them by quickly made and conscious decision to find in the face of the Crimean khans of the Supreme governors and patrons (at the same time the author wrote several years ago that he exercised "expeditious" control of life of Cossacks seraskir). Otherwise they were expected by constant prosecutions from the same serasker, Nogais, Turks, and eventually - punishment and death of community.

As not less disputable the opinion, unfortunately, without everyones on that the historical bases to this day meeting in historical literature, about creation by Cossacks-nekrasovtsami in Kuban of a certain Liberia, "a peculiar republic" appears that also conflicts both to the most extensive case of primary sources, and to the latest, most perspective researches on history of the Don Cossacks (N.A. Mininkov, M.A. Ryblova, B. Bouk, etc.). The pointedness of the Soviet historiographic tradition on class fight as a factor of development of history generated, for example, in 1966 such statement which is noncritical apprehended by some modern scientists: "Insurgents (I. Nekrasova. - Of S.) managed to create the free Cossack republic, let not on the home ground, let in smaller sizes, than they assumed, but nevertheless they managed to fulfill the dream of the Cossack state with the ataman at the head" [32].

On the contrary, in the course of successful in general adaptation of nekrasovsky Cossacks in community and "old" Kuban Cossacks, and life of the Tatar-Nogai population of the Crimean khanate it is possible to see realization of the principles of "symphony" between governors and citizens when citizenship is not perceived as personal freedom abasement when this personality actively declares herself when "resistance, spiritual and social activity... are defined as an important measure of rescue of orthodox and all Orthodoxy" [33]. Therefore in the territory of the Crimean khanate the Old Belief confessional activism, their devotion Gireyam and, the main thing, personal responsibility before God for perfect acts were the cornerstone of the principles of "prosperity" of Cossacks. All this (in connection with expression of natural reaction of khans to such behavior of Cossacks) also helped community of Cossacks to survive and develop.

Literature

1. D.V. shade. "army Kuban Ignatovo Kavkazskoye": historical ways of Cossacks-nekrasovtsev (1708 - the end of the 1920th): the 2nd prod., ispr. and additional Krasnodar, 2002; "With what tsar we live, and we serve that."//Homeland. Grew. used up. silt. zhurn. 2004. No. 5. Page 73-76; Old Believers Cossacks in the North Caucasus: from the first bands to hansky Cossack army (Some theoretical aspects of assessment of a role of a Crimean and Ottoman state factor in formation and development of the Kuban Cossacks)//Lipovane: history and the culture of Old Believers Russians / Edition - sost. A.A. Prigarin. Odessa, 2005. Issue 2.
2. D.V. shade. Decree. soch.
3. Bulavinsky revolt. 1707-1708: Sb. dock. M, 1935.
4. B.M. Bouk. To history of the first Kuban Cossack army: search of a shelter in the North Caucasus//the East. 2001. No. 4. Page 30-38; N.A. Mininkov. To the history of split of Russian Orthodox Church (a little-known episode from the last Don Cossacks)//After line of the textbook of history: Studies. settlement of Rostov of N / D, 1995. Page 26-46; O.G. Usenko. Initial history of the Kuban Cossacks (1692-1708)//From archive of the Tver historians: Sb. nauch. tr. Tver, 2000. Issue 2. Page 63-77.
5. See: 1storsh ukrashsky kozatstv. Naris at dvokh volumes / Vshchpovid. edition V.A. Smolsh. Kshv, 2006. T. 1. Page 588.
6. Seyid Muhammad of Reese. The expert - sebju - with - seyar fi akbar of a mulyuka of Tatars, or Seven planets in news of Tatar / Previous M. Kazambek's tsars. Kazan, 1832.C. 12.
7. A.A. Bulychev. Between Saints and demons: Notes about posthumous destiny disgraced the tsar Ivan the Terrible. M, 2005. Page 43-44; etc.
8. Korolenko of P.P. Nekrasovskiye Cossacks//News of OLIKO. Ekaterinodar, 1900. Issue 2.
9. F.V. Tumilevich. Fairy tales and legends by Cossacks - nekra-sovtsev. Rostov N / D, 1961.
10. The Russian state archive of ancient acts (further - RGADA), t. 123, op. 1. 1709, 1.
11. The Russian state archive of navy (further - RGA Navy), t. 233, op. 1, 16.

Came to edition

12. Sokurov V.N. Kanzhalskaya fight of 1708 and its reflection in the Kabardian folklore//Topical issues of the Kabardino-Balkarian folklore studies and literary criticism. Nalchik, 1986. Page 48-64.
13. Archive of the Dnipropetrovsk historical museum of D. Yavornitsky. KP-38212/Arkh.-223.
14. B. Bouk. Decree. soch.
15. RGADA, t. 89, op. 1. 1708, 2.
16. War with Turtsiyey 1711 (The Prutian opera - a tion) / Prod. A.Z. Myshlayevsky. SPb., 1893.
17. RGA Navy, t. 233, op. 1, 28.
18. In the same place, 34.
19. In the same place, 19.
20. Department of manuscripts of National Library of Russia, t. 905, Q-347.
21. New about Bulavin's revolt//Historical archive. 1960. No. 6.
22. M.A. Ryblova. Don brotherhood: the Cossack communities to Dona in XVI - the first third of the 19th century. Volgograd, 2006.
23. RGADA, t. 89, op. 1, 1717, 4.
24. A.D. Bachinsky. Danube nekrasovets and zadunaysky Zaporozhetses//Historical study of local lore of Odesshchina. Odessa, 1985. Issue 6. Page 9 (on the Uke. language).
25. P.I. Melnikov. Old Belief bishops//Russian vestn. 1863. T. 45. No. 6. Page 471.
26. RGADA, t. 248, op. 113, 474.
27. State archive of the Astrakhan region, t. 394, op. 1, 1961.
28. V.I. Milchev. A discussion about time of emergence of a не-красовцев in Northwest Black Sea Coast in the light of documents of the Russian state archive of ancient acts//Lipovane: history and culture of Old Believers Russians. Page 28.
29. E.D. Felitsyn. The collection of the archive materials relating to the history of Kuban and the Kuban Cossack army. Ekaterinodar, 1904. Page 147.
30. RGADA, t. 177, op. 1. 1739, 128.
31. S.S. Andreyeva. To a question of stay of nekrasovsky Cossacks under the domination of the Crimean khanate//the Cossack heritage. Nikopol; Dnipropetrovsk, 2005. Issue 2. Page 82. (on the Uke. language).
32. I.I. Smirnov, A.G. Mankov, E.P. Podjyapolskaya, V.V. Mavrodin. Peasant wars in Russia XVII-XVSh of centuries of M., 1966. Page 202.
33. V.V. Kerov. A new system of the personality and new type of religiousness in Old Belief//Lipovane: history and culture of Old Believers Russians. Page 4.

On November 27, 2007

Richard Castro
Other scientific works: