In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

CHAPTER 1 Russia’s Policy Towards Kalmyks (Late 16th –mid-17th Centuries) Russia’s policy at the initial stage of the Kalmyks’ accession to Russia (late 16th –mid-17th centuries) The process of establishing a centralized Russian state, which was formed as a multinational state on a multiethnic basis, was over in the second half of the 16th century. While before the middle of the 16th century the Russian state was joined by the Karelians, Komi, Khanty, Meshchera, Mordovians , Udmurts, and other peoples, in the second half of the 16th century the territory of the state was expanded to incorporate the conquered Kazan , Astrakhan, and Siberian Khanates. The entire territory of Bashkiria became a part of Russia; the Chat, Baraba, and Terena Tatars naturalized in Russia voluntarily in the late 16th century, while the Tomsk Tatars joined Russia in the early 17th century. Both the territory of Russia and its population grew (from 2.8 to 7–7.5 million km2 and from 6.5 to 7 million people, respectively) due to the Russian expansion beyond the Volga river and deep into Siberia. Thus, the Russian state embraced more ethnic groups by the early 17th century.1 Oirats (Kalmyks) as well as other peoples became a part of Russia in the late 16th century. Kalmyks (the Derbet ruler Dalai Batyr and Torgout taishai Ho Urluk) left Dzungaria, formed two groups and proceeded northwest from Lake Zaysan along the Irtysh river, reached the upper course of the river, and entered into negotiations with representatives of local and central authorities to acquire Russian citizenship. Despite their numerous armed forces (over 80 thousand soldiers and 200 thousand of the rest of the population),2 sufficient material resources (horses, camels, and other i Translator’s note: taisha—a Kalmyk chieftain. 2 Kalmykia in Russia’s Past and Present livestock) and reputation of a warlike people, they avoided large-scale armed conflicts or battles on their way from Dzungaria to the northwest (to Tara, Tobolsk, etc.) and west (to Ural and Yaik). Moving by unexplored ways and having no idea about their future permanent location, Kalmyks pursued a cautious and rather balanced policy during the period under examination and tried to maintain neutrality. In view of the major objectives of their migration to the northwest (searching for new pasture territories) and coming into contact with other peoples, geopolitical interests of the Kalmyk taishas went beyond the bounds of their uluses.ii The safe policy that Kalmyks pursued during the expeditionary war between Russia and Siberian Khanate is evidence of this. When A. Voyeikov, an assistant of the Tara voevoda,iii was exploring the Baraba Steppe with a small unit (of only 400 soldiers) to locate and defeat Kuchum Khan in August 1598, there was a large group of Kalmyk soldiers amounting to five thousand people at a two-day distance from the Khan’s camp. The chief of the expedition unit failed to find out why they were there. At the same time, Kalmyks’ treatment of the defeated Siberian Khan’s children was humane. Kuchum Khan’s three sons (two sons were captured and taken to Moscow )—Alei, Azim and Ishim—as well as their people lived in Kalmyk uluses for a long time. Ishim was even married to a daughter of senior Torgout taisha Ho Urluk. Perhaps, this fact enabled authors of History of the USSR (Vol. 1. From the Ancient Period to the Late 18th century. Moscow, 1947) to conclude that “Kalmyks backed up Kuchum Khan’s followers…” This conclusion means politics first of all: when History of the USSR was written, Kalmyks were deported to Siberia. At the same time, it became known from an otpiskaiv written by Ufa voevoda Mikhail Fedorovich Nagov (of 1601; after March 9) that Kuchum Khan’s sons were sure their father “was suckered to Kolmaki and killed.” Researches studying the issue were correct to note that Kuchum Khan’s sons had no real authority to regain the former power upon the defeat of the Siberian Khanate. Moreover, Kalmyks broke off all relations with “Kuchum Khan’s followers” after Ishim’s raid on the Tyumen uyezd (1606–1608).3 The cautious policy of Kalmyks can be explained by the fact that the situation in Siberia was complicated at the time. Russia was gathering strength and expanding its territory in the east; while some parties tried to ii Translator’s note: ulus—a Kalmyk socio-administrative unit (a tribe, a large group of nomad families), later used to...

Share