{"title":"The campaign of Muhammad Giray I to Moscow in 1521 in the light of a critical analysis of Russian historical sources","authors":"M. E. Shalak","doi":"10.22378/kio.2023.1.21-32","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A little more than 500 years ago, in the summer of 1521, the Crimean Khan Muhammad-Giray made a campaign against Moscow, thus marking the beginning of almost 250 years of confrontation between Russia and Crimea. This confrontation ended with the defeat of the Crimean Khanate and its incorporation into the Russian Empire. However, there is still no consensus among historians about the assessments of this event. Especially in light of the political events of recent years. Even more broadly, this topic concerns the building of Russian-Tatar cultural interaction in terms of developing their attitude to the common history of Eastern Europe. In the article presented, we will try to understand this through a comprehensive analysis of Russian historical sources of a chronicle nature. To achieve this goal, it will be necessary to establish the main circle of chronicle sources, dividing it into independent groups according to the degree of informativeness. It will also be necessary to identify the main narrative traditions, from the point of view of objectivity, in which the assessments and interpretations of the Tatars’ march on Moscow in 1521 may differ from each other. As a result, 3 main traditions in the coverage of the events of the summer of 1521 will be highlighted. in Russian historical sources of a chronicle nature. The most important chronicle sources in terms of reliability and objectivity include the Vologda-Perm and Resurrection chronicles, Postnikovsky and Vladimir chroniclers. The least reliable and tendentious are the Nikon Chronicle and the Power Book. An intermediate position between the providentialist and rationalist historiosophical position is occupied by the Lviv Chronicle and the Chronograph of the edition of 1512.","PeriodicalId":34588,"journal":{"name":"Krymskoe istoricheskoe obozrenie","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Krymskoe istoricheskoe obozrenie","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22378/kio.2023.1.21-32","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
A little more than 500 years ago, in the summer of 1521, the Crimean Khan Muhammad-Giray made a campaign against Moscow, thus marking the beginning of almost 250 years of confrontation between Russia and Crimea. This confrontation ended with the defeat of the Crimean Khanate and its incorporation into the Russian Empire. However, there is still no consensus among historians about the assessments of this event. Especially in light of the political events of recent years. Even more broadly, this topic concerns the building of Russian-Tatar cultural interaction in terms of developing their attitude to the common history of Eastern Europe. In the article presented, we will try to understand this through a comprehensive analysis of Russian historical sources of a chronicle nature. To achieve this goal, it will be necessary to establish the main circle of chronicle sources, dividing it into independent groups according to the degree of informativeness. It will also be necessary to identify the main narrative traditions, from the point of view of objectivity, in which the assessments and interpretations of the Tatars’ march on Moscow in 1521 may differ from each other. As a result, 3 main traditions in the coverage of the events of the summer of 1521 will be highlighted. in Russian historical sources of a chronicle nature. The most important chronicle sources in terms of reliability and objectivity include the Vologda-Perm and Resurrection chronicles, Postnikovsky and Vladimir chroniclers. The least reliable and tendentious are the Nikon Chronicle and the Power Book. An intermediate position between the providentialist and rationalist historiosophical position is occupied by the Lviv Chronicle and the Chronograph of the edition of 1512.