Cossack Government
By the late 17th century, after the Poles regained the Right Bank and the Zaporozhians asserted their autonomy, only about one-third of the territory once controlled by Khmelnytsky (roughly one-sixth of present-day Ukraine) remained under the direct authority of the hetmans.
Situated on the Left Bank, this land was called the Hetmanate by Ukrainians, while Russians referred to it as Malorossiia. It included ten regimental districts: Starodub, Chernihiv, Nizhyn, Pryluky, Kiev, Hadiach, Lubny, Pereiaslav, Myrhorod, and Poltava. Early in the 18th century, the town of Baturyn served as the hetman’s official residence and the administrative capital of the land. The Hetmanate was a relatively densely settled and well-developed territory. It included 11 major cities, 126 towns, and about 1800 villages. In 1700, it was inhabited by about 1.2 million people, approximately one-quarter of the total Ukrainian population at the time.The Hetmanate’s Cossack system of government had changed little since 1648. The chancellery, however, had grown markedly and its personnel, often recruited from the Kiev Academy, formed a kind of proto-bureaucracy. Because the hetmans did not distinguish between their private funds and those of the Hetmanate, finances were often in disorder. To deal with the problem, two treasurers-general (heneralni pidskarbii) were added to the administration. But these adjustments contributed little to solving the key fiscal problem of the Hetmanate, namely, the steady erosion of income resulting from privatization of public lands by Cossack officers. Apparently the hetmans were unwilling or unable to prevent the starshyna from expanding their private holdings at the expense of the Hetmanate’s rapidly shrinking fund of “rank” or office-related lands.
Although the structure of Cossack government underwent only minor changes, major shifts occurred in the socioeconomic system of the Hetmanate.
By the late 17th century, the starshyna had virtually excluded the common Cossacks from higher offices and the decision-making process. The decline in the fortunes of the common Cossacks was closely tied to their mounting economic problems. The almost endless wars of the 17th and early 18th centuries financially ruined many Cossacks who had to go to war at their own cost. As might be expected, the decline in the number of battle-ready Cossacks also had a great effect on the armed forces of the Hetmanate: in 1730, these forces numbered only 20,000 men. Moreover, the equipment, military principles, and techniques employed by the Cossacks had increasingly become outdated. Thus, by the 18th century, the Cossack army had become a mere shadow of the potent fighting force it had once been.Leadership style also changed. While some Cossack leaders of Khmelnytsky’s generation had been characterized by political vision and bold and assertive actions, the leaders of the Hetmanate, born in the post-heroic era, adhered to limited and pragmatic goals. They concentrated on adapting to existing political situations rather than attempting to alter them. In general, their aim was twofold: to maintain a satisfactory relationship with the tsar and, as members of a rising Cossack elite, to consolidate their socioeconomic gains vis-à-vis the common Cossacks and peasants.