Peter I and Mazepa; More Trouble in Ukraine, on the Don, and the Terek

Tsar Alexei died in 1676 of an apparent heart attack, leaving sixteen children—thirteen by his first wife Maria Miloslavskaia and three by his second marriage to Natalia Naryshkina.

Although a well educated woman for Muscovy, Sophia re­lied heavily on her lover Prince Golitsin and the new com­mander of the “streltsy” corps, the commoner Shalkhovitsky. Her rule in the name of Tsar Ivan V was marked with peaceful relations with other states such as KingJan Sobieskis Com­monwealth, with which she signed the “eternal peace” in 1686. Poland relinquished all claims to Kyiv, left bank Ukraine, and the region “Down Under” although to the Zaporozhian Cos­sacks it was an empty formality and Scarcelypassed their notice. There were also plans hatched by Golitsin for major reforms in the army and the system of serfdom, introducing education from western Europe and Ukraine, and religious toleration. Sophia continued the persecution of Old Believers and runaway serfs, began to act as an autocrat, and expressed a wish to be crowned as Tsarina.

Following the suppression of Stenka Razins uprising the young Tsar inherited a peaceful Muscovy. The left bank of Ukraine carried on as a semi-independent Cossack territory under Hetman Ivan Samoilovich who had maintained a faithful relationship with Sophia and Golitsin. Sophias policy had be­come directed against the Ottoman Empire, and with the signing of the treaty of Eternal Peace with the Commonwealth Muscovyjoined the Polish-Lithuanian Crown, the HolyRoman Empire, and the Venetian Republic in an anti-Ottoman Holy League. Alarge Muscovite army commanded by Prince Golitsin and supported by left-bank Cossack regiments left in April to invade the Crimean Peninsula, but in spite of Samoilovich s ad­vice to the contrary. The summer heat came early that year, the herds of horses ran out of fodder and water, and the Tatars set fire to the dry prairie grass. Disease broke out, and men and horses began to die. The whole expedition turned into a disas­ter, and was forced to withdraw back to the north. Golitsin put the blame on Samoilovich and his Cossacks, accusing them of collusion with the Tatars, and on 22 July 1687 the hetman was arrested with his sons and brother. Samoilovich and his son Jacob were exiled to Siberia, and his two other sons and brother Gregorywere tortured and executed. The treachery and cruelty which was endemic in Muscovite despotism was alive and well.

Another obedient hetman had to be elected, one who would be receptive to Moscow’s wishes. A wide area on the banks of the KolomakRiverwas cordoned off by Prince Golit­sins men, and several thousand rank-and-file Cossacks were se­lected for the insidious formality of electing a hetman. The offi­cers settled on Samoilovichs Osaul and Doroshenkos former Chancellor Ivan Mazepa, who was brought forward and duly acclaimed by the assembled rank-and-file.

Who was Ivan Mazepa, whose name, following his death, became known throughout Europe and North America? He was born in west-bank Ukraine in Bila Tserkva to a gentry Cos­sack family, where in 1654 his father became the colonel of the regiment. Due to the anathema later placed on Mazepa, the de­struction of documents and the official eradication of his very name until 1917, not much is known for certain about his early life. He was born around 1639 and received a good education in the Orthodox KyivAcademy, and perhaps also studied with the Jesuits. He spent some time abroad, five or six years as a page in KingJan Casimir^,s court, and had an opportunity to travel to western Europe, where he improved his knowledge of foreign languages. A French diplomat by the name of Jean Baluse, whose description of the trip to Mazepas capital of Ba­turin was discovered in Paris after World War I, left the following description of the hetman.

His language is, in general, selected and ornate, although during conversations he usually keeps silent and listens to others. At his court (sic) he has two German doctors with whom he converses in their own tongue; to the Italian masters of whom there are sev­eral in the castle, he speaks in the Italian language.

Yet another French diplomat, Baillet de la Neuville, who was in Moscow in 1689, commented on meeting Mazepa there:

During all that time the hetmans (of Ukraine) were considered subordinate to the Muscovite Tsar, yet they never went to Mos­cow. But Golitsin (to present a decoration in the presence of the Tsar)... summoned Mazepa to Moscow with 500 of his higher officers. During the sojourn of Mazepa in Moscow I could not re­ceive permission from the Muscovites to see him, and only a few times at night in disguise did I visit him.... The prince (sic) is not handsome but he is a highly educated man who speaks the Latin language fluently... he is by birth a Cossack.¹⁸

In August 1689, Hetman Mazepa had been invited to Mos­cow by Sophia, where he was received with pomp and ceremony befitting a head of state. Mazepa was in Moscow when on 17 August young Peter I overthrew his half-sister, and he had the astuteness to support Peter with his 500 Cossacks. The 24- year-old Peterwas drawn to the older Hetman without whose backing the coup against Sophia would probably not have suc­ceeded, and for many years the two would share a friendship.

By supporting Peter I, Mazepa also saw his own chance to obtain the young Tsar s approval and to shore up his personal power in Ukraine. He was facing open revolts and uprisings by a population which saw him as just another wealthy landowner, who was benefiting the officer corps and distributing land to his supporters, and introducing monopoly rights over key and lucrative activities such as milling and brewing. Hiring paid troops, Mazepa succeeded to put down most of the revolts and to create a loyal, privileged corps of senior Cossack officers.

courage.

The French diplomat s views were shared by European publications such as the article published in a Leipzig newspaper in 1704, which informed its readers that the Ukrain­ian army “is commanded by their leader Mazepa, who thanks to his ability and great military genius, enjoys great fame in the world.”²¹ We also know from a detailed description of Muscovy and left bank Ukraine published in 1701 InViennabyEmperor Maximilians diplomat in Moscow, G. Korb, that by the be­ginning of the 18th century Mazepa had built up a powerful army.

The Cossacks are a great element of strength for the Tsars. The Muscovites conciliate them with annual gifts, and study to keep them faithful with the fattest promises, lest they should take it into their heads to pass over to the Poles, and by their defection draw off the whole strength of the military power of Rus,∙ for this stout race excels the Muscovites, both in the art of war and in bravery of soul.²²

By the beginning of the 18th century, the east bank of Ukraine had a well developed economy, and a society and cul­ture that was very different from their neighbors, particularly Muscovy. With the greatest regions of the most fertile soil in the whole of Europe the main sector of the Ukrainian economy was agriculture, but there was manufacture as well, as recorded by F.C. Von Weihe:

... benevolent nature has neglected nothing here which could be useful to the carefree and contented life of the inhabitants,- they have salt and iron mines, and also glassmaking plants... wheat grows here in unlimited quantity... oxen and sheep are of a beautiful breed and size... the horses have great endurance and are favored more than any other animal because of their racing speed. The kozaks have a uniform pattern of life, and dress alike.²³

Detailed notes were also made by a Danish envoy to St. Petersburg during 1709-12 by the name of Jul Just who de­scribed life in Ukraine. Coming from Muscovy, he was pleasantly surprised by the neatness and cleanliness of Ukrain­ian towns and villages. He was given a “splendid” reception by Hetman Skoropadskys acting hetman AndriyMartinovich, and had a chance to observe common life. Unlike in Muscovy: “The inhabitants of Kozak Ukraine live in prosperity and often sing. They sell and buy all sorts of merchandise without paying taxes, and can choose whatever handicraft is to their liking, and trade with whatever they want. They are subject to only a small tax­ation to the Hetman.”²⁴

The Dane was also impressed by the Ukrainian towns and villages, by the cleanliness and architecture of the town build­ings:

The inhabitants of Chernihiv Province as well as the entire popu­lation of Kozak Ukraine are known for their politeness and clean­liness, dressing neatly and keeping their homes immaculately clean... in all respects cleaner and more polite than the Mus­covites.... Korolevets is a big town... the streets are beautiful, such as I never saw in Muscovy. The buildings are stately, strong, and clean and are as in Denmark, not as in Muscovy where they are hidden in courtyards.... Nizhin is a great commercial city, fortified by a strong wall.”

Even in a city such as Nemiriv in Podilia (“Polish Ukraine”), which had been devastated by war, “the meanest building was much cleaner than the most sumptuous palace in Moscow.”²⁵

Medicine was relatively well developed, as observed by the German doctor and scientist S.G. Gmelin in his book “Trav­els Through Russia in 1770.” He mentions that common “chem­ical” medicines were known, and inoculations against smallpox were common.

Perhaps nothing illustrates the differences between Ukrainian culture from those of Muscovy more than family life. Cossackwomen were generally in charge of the household and had both domestic and public freedom, as was noticed by the Swedish officer Weihe who recorded in his diary that “even prominent women do not hesitate to drink whiskey at the mar­ket, and it is not surprising that they have great inclination tor- wards adventure.”²⁶ On Sundays women carried prayer books indicating that they were literate. Also corporal punishment of children was rare and was not well looked upon. Both men and women wore boots and women wore skirts tightly wrapped around their bodies made of thin woolen material of various colors. The men shaved their heads and wore long trousers made of wool, silk, or cloth, Supportedwith sashes. The contrast in family life between Ukraine and Muscovy could also not have been greater. Contact between young boys and girls was strictly forbidden in Muscovy, romantic love was unknown, and ado­lescent girls were usually married to men they did not know. Once married, women were regularly beaten by their husbands, and the father^,s whip was passed on to the husband. Besides the frequent reports by foreign travelers, we know of the slave­like conditions of wives and children from a handbook written by a monk called Sylvester, “Domostroy” (Household Building), which contains recipes on how to build a successful home: “dis­obedient wives should be severely whipped, though not in anger.” Even a good wife should be beaten from time to time— but not in public. To raise successful children, the boys and girls should also be beaten, for which they shall be grateful to the fa­ther when they grow up. Divorce could be very straightforward since a husband could beat his wife to death and remarry, but a less drastic form was simply for a husband to dispatch his wife to a convent after which he could marry, but no more than three times. Marriages were arranged and, unlike in Cossack Ukraine, romantic love was not a part of the culture.

This was the society over which upon his mother s death in 1694 Peter I assumed full authority as the autocrat, harboring a despotism and a brutal Crueltywhich soon became manifest.

He was as different from Mazepa as were their societies. We have the insightful description of the Tsarbythe Bishop of Sal­isbury Gilbert Burnet, when Peter I was in England two years later with his envoys (although the last sentence was written a few years later following the mass execution of the “streltsy”):

He is a man of very hot temper, soon inflamed, and very brutal in his passion; he raises his natural heat by drinking much brandy.... He is subject to convulsive motions all over his body. He wants (lacks) not capacity and has a larger measure of knowledge than might be expected from his education, which was very indiffer­ent; a want of judgment with an instability of temper appear in him too often and too evidently.... He is resolute but under­stands little of war, and seems not at all inquisitive that way.... After I had seen him often... I could not but adore the depth of the providence of God, that had raised up such a furious man to so absolute authority over so great a part of the world.²⁷

Peter s foreign policy, which guided his domestic affairs, began when he decided Muscovy needed an outlet to the sea. In 1695 he declared war on the Porte and the Crimea, and taking his troops with 6,000 Don Cossacks he moved against Azov. The campaign failed due to a lack of naval power, and the following year he attacked Azovby land and sea, forcing its sur­render after a brief siege. The new Polish-Lithuanian king, the Elector of SaxonyAugust II, was also at war with the Ottoman Empire but with little progress made, and following the Treaty OfKarlowitz signed 3 July 1700, KingAugust turned his atten­tion to Sweden, the virtual master of the Baltic Sea. InJanuary 1700 he declared war on his cousin Charles XII of Sweden, and four months later Denmark followed suit. Peter I also saw little hope of fighting the Ottoman Empire, and ten days after the treaty the Tsar declared war on Charles XII. The Great Northern War, which would last for more than 20 years, had begun.

Peter I realized that his land and naval forces had to be completely restructured and rebuilt on European standards if he was to fight Charles XII, and accompanied by an entourage of250 men in March 1697 he set out to western Europe to hire hundreds of foreigners, Withpromises of generous recompense, religious tolerance, and separate law courts. Eighteen months into his trip word came that four regiments of the “streltsy” musketeers had revolted, and Peter I hurried from Vienna back to Moscow, where he would reveal the first signs of brutality that would mark despotic rule for the rest of his life. The young Tsar had demoted the privileged status of the “streltsy” to co­incide with his intention of “Westernizing” the Muscovite army. Several “streltsy” regiments had been made to serve in the Azov campaigns and perform menial construction duties, with 2000 being sent to the Polish border, and other regiments not allowed to serve in Moscow close to their families and artisanal- commercial activities which many “streltsy” followed. A major complaint was that they were led by foreign officers, “heretics” who didn’t care about the “streltsy s” well-being or beliefs.

By the time Peter I reached Moscow the revolt had been suppressed by the Semyanovsky and Preobrazhensky Guards regiments, supported by others under the command of General Shein and his second-in-command, General Patrick Gordon. As the rebellious “streltsy” were marching on Moscow they were met 35 miles outside of the city by Shein s and Gordon s loyal troops, 6,000 on horseback and 2,000 on foot as described by Korb. As the “streltsy” began their attack across a stream General Shein ordered the artillery to open fire, causing such devastation that they quickly surrendered without the “west­ern-style” troops having to fire a shot. General Shein ordered 130 “streltsy” be executed on the spot for treason and 1,900 were taken as prisoners to Moscow. One thousand of the “streltsy” were tortured and executed, their mutilated bodies exposed to the public. The Hapsburg diplomat J.G. Korb wit­nessed the “streltsy” revolt during 1698 and the treatment of Sheins prisoners when they were brought to Moscow. He de­scribed the tortures and massive executions in which Tsar Peter I himself took part, and those close to him being ordered to fol­low suit. Korb describes a particularly brutal public execution on 23 October 1698, in which Peter I and his associates took part with the Tsar beheading five helpless “streltsy.”

This differed Considerablyfrom those that preceded... and hardly credible. 330 at a time were led out together to the fatal axes stroke... all the Boyars, Senators of the realm and Dumny Diaks (secretaries)... had been Summonedbythe Tsars com­mand to Bebraschentsko (Breobrazhenskoye), and enjoined to take upon themselves the hangmans office. Some struck the blow unsteadily and with trembling hands assumed this new and unac­customed task. The most unfortunate stroke... was given by him (Golitsin) whose erring sword struck the back instead of the neck, and thus chopping the “streltsy” almost in halves... (but) Alexasha (struck) the Unhappywretch a surer blow of an axe on the neck. Prince Romodanovsky... beheaded according to or­ders, one out of each (four) regiments. Lastlyto every Boyar a “streltsy” was led, whom he was to behead. The Tsar in his saddle looked on at the whole tragedy.²⁸

Torture scenes conducted by Peter I in the company of boyars were also witnessed by other foreign envoys, when they were drawn out of their residences to examine “howls more ap­palling and groans more horrible than they had yet heard, led them to examine what Crueltywas going on in the fourth house.” Of the 2,000 that had been taken prisoner, 1,200 were executed, and their widows and children expelled from Moscow. The fol­lowing spring all remaining 16 “streltsy” regiments were dis­banded, their properties confiscated and most were exiled to Siberia and other remote territories. Finally, after all these years, Tsar Peter Romanovhad his revenge on the “streltsy,” who once again were threatening to upset his God-given right to rule. Not that Peter I insisted on formal servility, such as prostration be­fore his person, but he demanded more substance. “Less ser­vility, more zeal in service and more loyalty to me and the state,” as he put it, “this is the respect which should be paid to the rrt ft

Tsar.

No soonerwas the “streltsy” revolt drowned in blood than the Cossacks of the Don began to stir again for the first time since the savage repression of Stenka Razins uprising three decades earlier. The loyalty and service which the Don Cos­sacks had shown in the Azov campaigns, and which to a large extent had ensured the capture of the Turkish fort, was not re­ciprocated by the Tsar. Peter I was casting his eyes on Don Cos­sack land as boyars were encouraged to expel Cossacks along the middle Don River and establish estates worked by serf labor. In 1700, the Cossacks along the Khoper and Medveditsa trib­utaries of the Don were ordered out of their homes, and five years later similar expulsions were repeated along the upper Donets. Another issue was the serfs, who were escaping to the Cossack country in increasing numbers. When Peter I de­manded that they be returned, he was ignored by the entire Don Cossack Army, which refused to break one of the oldest Cossack traditions, to give sanctuary to anyone fleeing state re­pression. To deal with the problem, in 1703 the Tsar s troops were sent to arrest escaped serfs who when caught were flogged and sent back to their masters. Don Cossack “stanitsas” were placed under the authority of the Admiralty at Voronezh, the mouth of the Don River was put out of bounds to Cossack fish­ermen, drying fish and mining for salt became a Tsar^,s mo­nopoly, and state taxes began to be introduced. As remarked by the Danish envoy, JulJust: “There is not a single state income which is not monopolized and shared by the Tsar.... Every fish- erman^,s net, which provides a livelihood for the poor, is taxed yearly.”²⁹ The despotism of the tsarist state was compounded by the corrupt officials: “What good can one expect from those (officials) who Openlyproclaim that they are working for their own good and comfort... ”³⁰

In 1705 a revolt against the Tsarist government broke out in Astrakhan, where memories of Stenka Razin were still strong, but after bitter fighting the port was recaptured by the Tsarist General Sheremetev in March of the following year. For the time being pressure had been taken off the Don Cossacks, but with the end of the fighting the government s demands to hand over escaped serfs were renewed. These continued to be ignored and Prince Yuri Dolgoruky marched into Cossack coun­try at the head of 1,000 men and began to round up serf refugees and burn Cossack “stanitsas” which had given them shelter. On the night of 8-9 October 1707 Dolgoruky was attacked by a band of 200 Don Cossacks as he was pursuing serfs in the steppe, his men were dispersed with heavy losses, and the Prince himself was killed.

The attack was led by a 47-year-old ataman called Condrat Bulavin ofBakhmut who now issued a call for the Don Cossack Armyto rise against tsarist oppression. His men were defeated by loyal Cossacks and Peter Γs troops, and Bulavin sought refuge in the Zaporozhian Sich which refused to turn him over to the authorities. On the contrary, at the head of a detachment OfZaporozhians Bulavin was back on the Don in the spring of 1708 and called on the Don and the Ukrainian Cossacks to overthrow “the evil boyars, governors, and loyal officers” and “according to Cossack custom... elect atamans and esauls.” Peter Is army was tied up fighting Charles XII of Sweden, and now was the time to strike for freedom. Messengers were sent to the Volga region and central Muscovy to seek support among the serfs and other lower classes. Bulavins army now numbered 9,000 strong including 1,200 Zaporozhians, and when con­fronted by Ataman Maximov many “loyal” Cossacks went over to his side and those who remained were defeated in the battle which followed. Maximov and his atamans were tried for sup­porting the enemy and killing rebel Cossacks, and were exe­cuted. Bulavin was elected as the ataman of the Don Cossack Host, and promptly confiscated 20,000 gold rubles from the churches to be distributed among the poor Cossacks. To gain some time he sent Peter I a letter in May, explaining the unjust local conditions, and that he and the new Cossack leadership were still “loyal.” In the meantime all reference to the Tsar, or mentions of his name, became a capital offense.

Peter I reacted quickly in spite of the Swedish war. Raising an army of 30,000 troops, mainly landed gentry militia under the killed Prince Yuri Dolgoruky s brother Vasili, he instructed the commander to “go round the Cossack towns and burn all of them down, and cut down the people and hang them... you know how much we need the land.”³¹ To the tsar and the Mus­covite ruling class the Cossacks were a foreign element, to be destroyed and replaced by a more docile and “loyal” population. The revolt had spread over a wide area and Bulavin decided to divide his army into three detachments. One was sent north to occupy Tsaritsin and Saratov, another to support rebels who were skirmishing with Prince Vasili Dolgoruky. A third, which included the Zaporozhians, was to storm and occupy Azov. A strategist Bulavinwas not, and outnumbered, each detachment was defeated in turn by Dolgoruky. Bulavin was deposed by his Cossacks, and surrounded in his house in Cherkask he killed himself by a bullet in the head. The rebellion raged on for some time but most rebel units were defeated and dispersed through­out southern Muscovy and the Zaporozhian steppe. A Don Cossack ataman by the name of Nekrasov led 2,000 Don Cos­sacks and their families to join others who had settled on the Kuban River on land controlled by the Ottoman Empire, pre­ferring to serve the Sultan rather than submit to Peter Γs tender mercies. The usual tortures and executions descended on the land, and over 40 Don Cossack “stanitsa” villages on the Med- veditsa, Khoper, and Donets rivers were razed to the ground, with some 7,000 Don Cossacks killed in battle, or executed out­right. Some 4,500 square miles came under the Tsar s control and was handed over to the nobility for service rendered, to be worked by serf labor. The uprising of the Muslim Bashkir people between the Volga River and the Ural Mountains which had begun in 1705 continued for some time, until the last pockets Ofresistancewere suppressed in 1711 by Muscovite forces, sup­ported by 10,000 Buddhist Kalmiks.