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 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

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, le premier est obligé de lui envoyer à son
avénement au trône un carrosse attelé de six chevaux &2000 sequins, & celui de Walachie 1000 sequins & un
équipage de même. Malgré cela, dans le cours de l’année, exige des donatives continuelles de ces deux Princes,
qui lui sont presqu’entierement subordonnés 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 the manuscript preserved in the Archives of the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Paris, erroneously reducing Moldova’s monetary obligation to 200 sequin.
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 warranted 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:

2
The massive work of Baron de Tott was harshly criticised by Charles de Peyssonnel, 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 de Tott. (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 Villeneuve to de Tott).
4
J. Reuilly, Voyage en Crimée et sur les bords de la Mer Noir, pendant l’année 1803, suivi d’un Mémoires 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 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 17 th
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.

5
A. Sacerdoţeanu, Du nouveau concernant „une enquête française sur les Principatés roumaines 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. Odobescu printed the report entitled
Questions et réponses sur la Moldovie et la Valachie after the manuscript found at the Minsitry fo Foreign
Affairs, collection Correspondance politique - Turquie, vol. 51, pages 317-322.
7
C.C.Giurescu, Une enquête française sur les Principautés roumainés au commencement du XVIII-e siècle,
excerpt from M.E.R.F., 1924, p. 1-29. The author analysed the document after the manuscript found at the
Bibliothèque Nationale, quota Nouvelles acquisitions françaies 21661 (the manuscript comes from the library of
Orientalist Charles Schefer). C.C. Giurescu considered that the „answers” regarding Moldova had been written
in Poland during October 1711 and April 1741, and that the manuscript may be attributed to Marquis de Bonnac;
other possible authors could be the ambassadors of France in Poland, Baluze or Bézenval (ibidem, p. 28-29).
8
I.E. Semionova, Stabilirea legăturilor diplomatice permanente între Ţara Românească și Rusia la sfârșitul
veacului al XVII-lea și începutul secolului al XVIII –lea, in „Romanoslavica”, t.V, 1962, p. 36.
 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
(1692-1699) 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.
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),

9
Le Khanat de Crimée dand les Archives du Musée du Palais de Topkapı, ed. Alexandre Bennigsen Pertev Naili
Boratov, Dilek Desaive, Chantal Lemercier–Quelquejay, Paris, La Haye, 1978, p. 201-203.
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 which 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 Moldova 12. 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
10
Ibidem, p. 245-246.
11
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, in C.M.R.S., t. XIII,
1972, nr. 3, p. 373: Les Khans de Crimée étaient autorisés àpercevoir 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 de garder.
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 the 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 29 th 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 10 th,
by the Habsburg resident von Sinzendorf; in this document, the writer narrated in full detail
the nature of the solicitations made by the Crimean 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

13
Hurmuzaki, Documente, vol. I/ supl. 1, doc. CIV, p. 55-56: le grand Tartare à envoye son premier visir à
sadite Hautesse, le quel luy a fait entendre que ledit Tartare demandoit le revenu annuel de la Bogdannie pour
luy et le sangiacat de Caffa pour son fils, aultrement protestait qu’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.
16
Hurmuzaki, Documente, vol. XI, Apendice I, doc. LXXXVI, p. 649.
between this issue and that of tributes demanded by Crimean Khans – although, the Crimean
“separatism” manifested itself plenary only by the second half of 18 th 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 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 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,
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 Danubian principalities, a tribut assigned and collected by the
Khan’s own representatives”.
18
Halil Inalcık, Power relationships between Russia, the Crimeea and the Ottoman Empire as reflected
titulature, in vol. Passé turco-tatar, presént soviétique Études offertes à Alexandre Bennigsen/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 a substantial portion of the overall revenue of the Tatar ruling elit. The Crimeans
received tribute from Moscovy, Poland, Moldavia and the Circassians begs which altogether reached an amount
in value perhaps as much as 100.000 gold pieces a year.
19
M. Guboglu, Catalogul documentelor turceşti, vol I, doc. 101, p. 40. The author used a copy of the document
(B.A.R., collection of Turkish documents, DLXXXI, page 32), a copy used at the end of 19 th century. The copy
comes with a translation in French of the document. We assume that M. Guboglu summed up the paper by only
reading the French version, whose text includes the term haradj.
 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 Kalga 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,

20
Tahsin Gemil, Relaţiile ţărilor române cu Poarta otomană, doc. 202, p. 414-416.
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, in February 1646). The editor translated vergü (lines 15 and 23)
with „fixed gifts”, and hedaya with „presents”.
published in Romania as a novel, historian Ismail Hakkı Uzunçarşılı, paraphrased the
following: “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 17 th 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 the 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.

22
Ismail Hakkı Uzunçarşılı, Osmanlı Tarihi, vol. II. Istanbul’un fethinden Kanunî Sultan Süleyman’ in ölümüne
kadar, ed. III, Ankara, 1975, p. 434: Boğdan voyvodaları Osmanli hazinesinden başka Kırım hanlarına da vergi
veriyorlardi; eger Kırım hanı bir tecavüz vukuunda Boğdan 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 Crimean Khanate’s chancellery, has no identical
correspondent in Romanian, to render the meaning in Tatar political vocabulary.
24
Gemil Tahsin, Relaţiile ţărilor române cu Poarta otomană, doc. 129, p. 293-297.
25
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.
 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 confirming 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 26 th 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

27
Darius Kolodziejczyk (The Crimean Khanate and Poland-Lithuania, p. 496-506) depicted a scenery of the
tribute and of the “fixed tributes” received from Poland by Crimean Khans during 1462 and 1742. In the
presented table, among the sums calculated in florins, in order to show the tribute and the “fixed tribute”, 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, the author considers that Moscow had sent tribute, called vihod, only up until 1502, with the
exception of the short period of time during 1670 and 1685.
 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.
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 gifts 30 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 1593-1606, the period of the so-called
“longest war”, is very similar to what happened during 1683-1699 regarding the position of

29
Biblioteca Academiei Române, manuscript collection, Colecţia documente turceşti, DL XXX, page 18a.
Document summarised by M. Guboglu, Catalogul documentelor turceşti, vol. II, doc. 121, p. 43.
30
The noun munera in the Latin text – from munus/muneris – besides its meaning 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., microfilm collection, 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 the volume Mihai Viteazul în conştiinţa europeană, vol. 5,
Mărturii, Bucureşti, 1990, doc. 68, p. 144-146.
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 marches 32.
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 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.

32
Uğur Demir, Târîh-i Mehmed Giray, Istanbul 2006, p. 44-45.
33
Victor Ostapchuk, Svitlana Bilyazeva, The Ottoman Northern Black Sea Frontier at Akkerman Fortress: The
view from Historical and Archaeological Project, în vol. The Frontiers of Ottoman World, ed. A.C.S. Peacock,
Oxford University, New York, 2009, p. 137.