Reacţii contra dominaţiei otomane asupra Mării Negre in prima jumătatea secolului al xvii-lea: Alianţa intre cazaci şi tătari
Reactions Against the Ottoman Domination Over the Black Sea in the First Half of the 17th Century: The Cossack-Tatar Alliance

Summary/Abstract: In the first decades of the seventeenth century, the C)ttoman Empire was faced with the difficult problem of the looting raids by the Cossacks., The repeated attemp~ by the Otomans to end this pbenomenon, either by an active naval presence in the Black Sea or by a great campaign, on land against the Kingdom of Poland (1621) - on which the (Zaporojian) Cossacks on the Dnept were dependent - remained unsuccessful. As a result, in the summer of 1624, a Cossack fleet was able to penetrate as far as the Bosphorous and strike panic: at Istanbul. At last on two occasions, this phenomenon clashed against the centriphugal tendencies of some Crimeean khans. More exactly, dwing th~~ reign of Mehmed Girai (1623 - 1628) and Inaiet (firai (1635 - 1637). In both cases:. alliances or pacts were signed between the Cossa(:ks and the Tatars, who, as a nnatter of fact, created an extremely dangerous buildup against the entire defense system of the Ottomans in the north region of the Black Sea. The flaws in this system enablc,d the Cossacks on the Don - under subordination to M:oscow - to conquer the fortress Azak (Azov) in 1637 and hold it for several years. . The Romanian Pri.ncipaiities'did not remain aloof of these events. In 16241625, on three separate occasions, Voivode Radu Mihnea, who held the reins of both the foreign policy of Moldavi~l and Wallachia (where his underage son Alexander was reigning), sent subsidies to 'the Cossacks who - in understanding with the Khanate of Crimea - were planning a great naval expedition directed against the very capital of the Ottoman Empire. „Când a analizat cronica lui Miron Costin, Nicolae Iorga a relevat cA acesta "îşi dă seama de locul pe care-l ocupă lucrurile străine" spre a înţelege pe cele din trecutul tArii Moldovei. Şi tot Iorga sublinia că, în cazul lui Miron Costin, avem de-a face cu "cea dintâi introducere a istoriei generale ca element explicativ esenţial pentru cea naţionalâ'• . De pildă, când povesteşte despre domnia lui Vasile vodă Lupu, mai exact despre împrejurările din anul 1646, Miron Costin îşi va întrerupe expunerea ca să introducăîn cronică un întreg capitol - "foarte competent" (N. Iorga)2 - asupra cazacilor. El i-a fost evident necesar ca să poată trece apoi la istoria ultimilor ani ai domniei lui Vasile Lupu, atât de marcaţi de relaţiile cu hatmanul Bogdan Hmelniţki. Căci, după părerea lui Miron Costin, atunci "s-au început şi răul nostru, în care pănă astădzi ne aflăm"3.”[…]

• Details
• Contents