The Social Composition of the Cossacks

The Cossacks can be divided into three major groups: the Zaporozhians (Cossacks who stayed in the Sich or lived in nearby areas and did not recognize any authority except for their own leaders); the Registered Cossacks,⁴⁶ who were paid for their service by the Polish government and had a number of privileges; the Nadvirni Cossacks who were hired by the magnates (the most powerful representatives of the szlachta) to serve in their private armies to protect their estates from Tatar raids and put down peasant uprisings.⁴⁷ The wealthiest group of these was the Registered Cossacks. They were paid by the king, elected their hetman and starshyna (officers), possessed significant landed property (sometimes whole villages), had their own court, and were freed of taxes. Practically their social status was close to that of the szlachta. Registered Cossacks usually received good education of European standards in Catholic or Orthodox collegiums and formed the Cossack aristocracy. Having families made them vulnerable in wars compared to the fearless Zaporozhians (who had nothing to lose). The Registered Cossacks tended to compromises and cautious behavior in military campaigns as they had what to lose. The Registered Cossacks were used by the Polish government to protect Ukraine’s borders and to take part in wars against enemies of the Rzeczpospolita. They were also used by the Polish government in wars against the Zaporozhians.⁴⁸ But it was difficult to force all Registered Cossacks to fight against the Zaporozhians in such conflicts. In Cossack-Polish wars the Registered Cossacks as well as the Nadvirni Cossacks often fought on both sides; part of them supporting the Polish-Lithuanian government and the other part – the rebellious Zaporozhians. In large military campaigns the Polish government usually mobilized all three types of Cossacks to fight against Poland’s enemies.

Evaluations of Cossackdom

The Ukrainian Cossackdom is quite a complicated phenomenon. No wonder that historians give different assessments of it.

Many prominent Russian historians (S. Solovyov, V. Klyuchevsky, and others) usually gave negative evaluation of Cossackdom. They wrote that the Cossacks were anarchical people who wanted to live at the expense of other people (by plundering their neighbors).

Polish historians and writers (Jablonowski, H. Sienkiewicz, etc) usually associated Cossackdom with bloody mass killings. They wrote that the Cossacks were lazy and cruel drunkards who were preventing the spread of civilization over Ukrainian lands. Polish historians usually deny existence of patriotic feelings among Ukrainian Cossacks. They stress that the Cossacks put their own interests over those of Ukraine, fought against each other, invited the Tatars and paid them with Ukrainian peasants.

In contrast to Ukrainian patriotic historians who describe the Sich as an organization of a democratic kind and the Cossacks as builders of Ukrainian statehood, their Russian and Polish colleagues say that the Sich was a typical ochlocracy (the rule of mob) and the Cossacks were against statehood as they did not want to be under control. Similar views were expressed by German historian I. Francisk who stated that the Cossacks valued the ‘wild freedom’ more than the anything else.

Turkish historians describe the Cossacks as cruel people who often attacked, robbed, and killed the peaceful population of Turkey’s coastal line. They also stress the fact that Turkey did not attack Ukraine (it was the Crimean Tatars who did it) but the Cossacks preferred to make raids against Turkey since the Ottoman Empire was richer than the Crimean Khanate. Turkish and Polish historians consider Cossack sea raids on Crimea and Turkey as acts of piracy since the aim of those raids was booty. They also say that the Zaporozhian Sich was a typical pirate republic.

Most Ukrainian historians justify the Cossacks’ activity. They say that Cossackdom was a protest against national and religious oppression. In their opinion the Cossacks defended Ukraine from Tatar raids and from the spread of Catholicism. They also try to prove that the Cossacks created the foundations of Ukrainian statehood which had a democratic character. M. Kostomarov, for example, called the Sich “a Christian Cossack Republic.” Many Ukrainian historians believe that Cossacks’ traditions of self-government, military structure and skills helped the Ukrainian people to create their own statehood in the 17^th century.

Some Ukrainian contemporary historians try to draw a strict line between the Registered and the Zaporozhian Cossacks. In their opinion, the Zaporozhians were prone to anarchy while the Registered Cossacks tried to create the foundation for the nation’s future statehood.

V. Smolii, director of the Institute of Ukrainian History, says that hundreds of thousands of various Ukrainian people (from szlachta to peasants) had passed the “school of Cossackdom.” The Cossack way of life, which meant constant movements and contacts with various people in Ukraine and other countries, broke stereotypes and created a new and broad worldview. Cossackdom gave Ukraine many capable political and military leaders. During a long time the Cossacks were the only real force in Ukraine, capable of fighting against Ukraine’s warlike and powerful neighbors. They secured the right of the Ukrainian people for existence, its economic and spiritual development. Cossackdom became for Ukrainians a symbol of their aspiration for liberty, democracy, and national independence.

Famous Ukrainian historian M. Hrushevsky, however, also wrote about some negative aspects of Cossackdom. He said, for example, that the Cossacks considered war their profession and were ready to sell their services to those who paid more (Tatars, Turks, Moldavians, Russians, Austrians, etc). Thus, they were not reliable allies.

Prominent Ukrainian writer and public figure P. Kulish at first described the Cossacks as real knights who defended Ukraine. Later he changed his opinion and said that Cossackdom was a revelation of the darkest and wildest instincts of the Ukrainian people. The Sich was not a democracy but rather a kind of anarchy. Thus, the Cossacks were unable to create statehood. He wrote that the Cossacks ruined the culture and economy of Ukraine. Poland, in his opinion, was a positive force which wanted to harness the Cossacks to let the economy develop. He criticized Ukrainian patriotic writers for idealization of the Cossacks: “We created the heroes of honor from bandits for ourselves” („Ми з розбишак наробили собі героїв честі”). In his opinion, the Cossacks are not pride but rather shame of Ukrainian history. Kulish believed that most of the Cossacks were not patriots but adventurous people who preferred an exciting though dangerous life of the Cossack to a peaceful but hard life of the peasant.

Thus, as before mentioned opinions indicate, it is difficult to give a fare assessment to Cossackdom. Ukrainian historians usually praise the Cossacks, while foreign historians criticize them. But we can assume that the Cossacks had positive (defense of Ukraine and its Orthodox faith and liberation of captives) and negative (cruel raids on peaceful towns with the aim of taking booty and captives; piracy on the Black Sea) traits. Cossackdom has been also a symbol of freedom for many generations of Ukrainians. According to numerous records of foreign contemporaries, the Cossacks valued freedom most of everything else on earth and were ready to sacrifice their lives for it. The history of Cossackdom inspired generations of Ukrainian patriots to struggle for independence.

1 Under the Mongols, however, Ukrainian princes had wide autonomy. They paid taxes (tribute) to the khans and were almost complete masters of their lands.

2 Most Ukraine belonged to Lithuania except Galicia, Bukovyna, and Transcarpathia.

3 Lithuanian was not yet transformed into a written language at the time.

4 The Lithuanians made up only about 1/10 of the principality’s population.

5 Salt was a valuable commodity in those days. It was used not only for cooking but also for preservation of food.

6 He failed to do it however and was forced to pay tribute to the khan and help him fight against Lithuanians and Poles.

7 Now the city of Kholm belongs to Poland.

8 Other western parts of the former Kyivan Rus were attached to Hungary in the 11^th- 13^th centuries (Transcarpathia/Закарпаття); and to Moldavia in 1359 (Bukovyna). Hungary controlled Transcarpathia until the 20^th century. It also controlled Bukovyna from the middle of the 13^th century until 1359 when the area became part of Moldavia. Bukovyna was attached to Soviet Ukraine by Stalin in 1940.

9 By that time Jadwiga had been engaged to a young Austrian prince Wilhelm whom she really loved and even married him secretly. Jadwiga died immediately after the death of her only and new-born child (daughter). After the death of Jadwiga at age 26, Jogaila married again three times. At his last marriage he was 72 while his bride was only 17. Jadwiga was canonized for her pious and peace-loving activity. In the 20^th century the tomb of St Jadwiga was reopened and her body was exhumed. After the exhumation, 16 persons directly involved had died from uncertain causes within a short period of time.

10 A good example of a formal union in today’s world is the union between Great Britain and Canada where the queen of Great Britain is the head of Canada, though in reality Canada is a fully independent country.

11The Polish-Lithuanian troops were also helped in the battle by Tatars, Hungarians and Czechs who were their allies. The German knights were so confident of their victory that they had prepared chains for prisoners.

12 It was signed in the city of Lublin in Poland.

13 Poland thus became an elective monarchy where the szlachta (nobility) played a dominant role.

14 The union was in a form of federation between the two countries. Lithuania retained its own laws, its own administration, and its own army.

15 The Sejm was made up of two chambers. Senators served in the upper chamber.

16 It produced many outstanding scholars and scientists. The most famous of them was Nicolas Copernicus.

17Yurii Drohobych, for example, became rector of the famous Bologna University.

18 The language of instruction in all European universities was Latin.

19 It was also known as the Ostroh Greek-Slavic-Latin Collegium (College).

20 He was a Moldavian aristocrat. His real name was Petre Movile (Петре Мовиле).

21 That was done by Tsar Peter I at the request of Hetman Mazepa.

22 Usually only Catholics could fully enjoy the benefits of the Magdeburg Law (be elected, for example, to city councils).

23 Orthodox clergy was divided into two groups: white priests who had the right to have families and black priests who were monks.

24 This church was also widely known under the name of Uniate church (уніатська церква).

25 The Gregorian calendar (named after Pope Gregory XIII) was officially adopted in the Commonwealth.

26 There were also Protestants in Ukraine, but their number was not significant.

27 There are some impressive remains of these fortresses in present-day Crimea. The most popular with tourists are Genoese fortresses in Sudak and Theodosia.

28 Not only Muslim traders (Tatar and Turks) were attacked but also their Orthodox colleagues (from Moscow and the Rzeczpospolita).

29 Hetman – the name of military leader in the Rzeczpospolita.

30 Dashkevych was also famous for military raids against the Tatars. In 1532 the angry Tatar khan tried to destroy the town of Cherkassy as punishment for the Cossack raids but failed to capture it.

31 The Crimean Khan sent to the Tsar a precious golden cup and plate from Kyiv’s St. Sophia Cathedral as a present.

32Ukrainian patriotic historians mythologized the life of Baida Vyshnevetsky and made him a Ukrainian patriot.

33 Boplan, a French engineer who served in Ukraine at the beginning of the 17^th century wrote that during his 17-years stay in Ukraine all hetmans lost their life in that way. Boplan designed the fortress Kodak located near the Zaporozhian Sich. The aim of Kodak was to block the raids of Zaporozhian Cossacks to the Crimea and Turkey.

34 This happened, for example, to the famous otamans Severyn Nalyvaiko in 1596, Pavlo But in 1637, Ivan Sulyma in 1635 and others.

35 The laws were not codified in any document and were transmitted orally from generation to generation.

36 For example, in 1575 the Cossacks under the leadership of Hetman Bohdan Ruzhynsky attacked Trapezund, Sinop and other coastal towns in Turkey. The local population suffered severely: men were blinded, women raped and mutilated, children killed.

37 Some historians point out that Cossacks took Christians as yasyr while Tatars did not take Muslims as yasyr.

38 This word apparently comes from Turkish ‘Sayka’, Italian ‘Saicca’ or Bulgarian ‘шайка’ which means a ‘pirate ship.’

39 This famous in Cossack military history capture of Kaffa was done at the request of the Khan Shagin-Girei, who needed Cossacks’ help in a civil war against his brother Mahomet supported by Turkey.

40 There was a popular saying, “If he was not in a sea raid he cannot be called a Cossack.” („Не козак той, хто не був у морському поході”).

41 In this battle Bohdan Khmelnytsky’s father was killed; Bohdan himself was taken prisoner. The head of the Polish army commander Stanislaw Zholkewski was brought to Istanbul as a military trophy. The cause of the war was the Cossacks’ raids on Istanbul and Varna.

42 Foreign travelers wrote that drinking competitions were especially popular with the Cossacks.

43„ Козацька здобиченька марно пропадає. Тиждень козак заробляє, за один день пропиває”.

44 Cossacks fulfilled that promise and that fact stopped the movement of Greek Catholic priests to Kyiv area.

45 Many Cossacks ended their lives in Orthodox monasteries as monks.

46 The name comes from the word ‘register’ (official list). The first unit of registered Cossacks was formed in 1572.

47 They were paid by magnates and received from them landed property.

48 One of their major tasks was to keep the Zaporozhians from military raids to Crimea and Turkey.

15