“And the Time Now is Not Different, but Still the Present ...”: The Problem of the Ratification of the Adrianople Peace Treaty (1713)

T. Bazarova
{"title":"“And the Time Now is Not Different, but Still the Present ...”: The Problem of the Ratification of the Adrianople Peace Treaty (1713)","authors":"T. Bazarova","doi":"10.15688/jvolsu4.2023.2.2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction. The Peace of Adrianople (June 13, 1713) ended the Russian-Turkish war of 1710– 1713. The Prut (1711) and Constantinople (1712) treaties signed by the Russian ambassadors were not ratified by the Turkish side. In Adrianople, there were also problems related to the confirmation of the treaty. Methods and materials. The source base was formed by documents stored in the Russian State Archive of Ancient Acts (F. 89 “Relations between Russia and Turkey”), as well as in the Scientific and Historical Archive of the Saint Petersburg Institute of History of RAS (F. 83 “Field Chancellery of Alexander D. Menshikov”). A comprehensive study of archival and published materials, a comparison of the information contained in them made it possible to formulate and analyze the main problems associated with the signing and ratification of the peace treaty. Analysis. The basis of the Adrianople peace, which the ambassadors extraordinary and plenipotentiary P. Shafirov and M. Sheremetev concluded with the Sublime Porte, was the provisions of the Peace Treaty of Constantinople (April 5, 1712). The additions made by the Ottoman ministers related to the Polish and Crimean problems did not meet the interests of Peter I. The wording “on the Crimean payment” was the result of a long diplomatic struggle and left the problem open. On June 22, 1713, Russian ambassadors and Ottoman ministers exchanged by the texts of the treaty. The countdown of the delivery time (90 days) of the confirmation of the peace agreement by Peter I began on June 13. The demand to send an ambassador with the ratification is also connected with the intention of the Sublime Porte to continue negotiations on Crimean payments. Results. The Russian ambassadors managed to prevent the revision of the agreement confirmed by the tsar. The Sublime Porte was no less interested than Russia in ending the war. The provisions of the Adrianople peace reflected the interests of the Ottoman government, which refused to support by force the demands of the Crimean Khan.","PeriodicalId":42917,"journal":{"name":"Volgogradskii Gosudarstvennyi Universitet-Vestnik-Seriya 4-Istoriya Regionovedenie Mezhdunarodnye Otnosheniya","volume":"61 5 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Volgogradskii Gosudarstvennyi Universitet-Vestnik-Seriya 4-Istoriya Regionovedenie Mezhdunarodnye Otnosheniya","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15688/jvolsu4.2023.2.2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction. The Peace of Adrianople (June 13, 1713) ended the Russian-Turkish war of 1710– 1713. The Prut (1711) and Constantinople (1712) treaties signed by the Russian ambassadors were not ratified by the Turkish side. In Adrianople, there were also problems related to the confirmation of the treaty. Methods and materials. The source base was formed by documents stored in the Russian State Archive of Ancient Acts (F. 89 “Relations between Russia and Turkey”), as well as in the Scientific and Historical Archive of the Saint Petersburg Institute of History of RAS (F. 83 “Field Chancellery of Alexander D. Menshikov”). A comprehensive study of archival and published materials, a comparison of the information contained in them made it possible to formulate and analyze the main problems associated with the signing and ratification of the peace treaty. Analysis. The basis of the Adrianople peace, which the ambassadors extraordinary and plenipotentiary P. Shafirov and M. Sheremetev concluded with the Sublime Porte, was the provisions of the Peace Treaty of Constantinople (April 5, 1712). The additions made by the Ottoman ministers related to the Polish and Crimean problems did not meet the interests of Peter I. The wording “on the Crimean payment” was the result of a long diplomatic struggle and left the problem open. On June 22, 1713, Russian ambassadors and Ottoman ministers exchanged by the texts of the treaty. The countdown of the delivery time (90 days) of the confirmation of the peace agreement by Peter I began on June 13. The demand to send an ambassador with the ratification is also connected with the intention of the Sublime Porte to continue negotiations on Crimean payments. Results. The Russian ambassadors managed to prevent the revision of the agreement confirmed by the tsar. The Sublime Porte was no less interested than Russia in ending the war. The provisions of the Adrianople peace reflected the interests of the Ottoman government, which refused to support by force the demands of the Crimean Khan.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
“现在的时间没有什么不同,但仍然是现在……”——《阿德里安堡和平条约批准问题》(1713年)
介绍。阿德里安堡和约(1713年6月13日)结束了1710年至1713年的俄土战争。俄罗斯大使签署的《普鲁特条约》(1711年)和《君士坦丁堡条约》(1712年)没有得到土耳其方面的批准。在阿德里安堡,也存在与确认条约有关的问题。方法和材料。来源基础是由存放在俄罗斯国家古代行为档案馆(F. 89“俄罗斯与土耳其的关系”)以及俄罗斯科学院圣彼得堡历史研究所的科学和历史档案馆(F. 83“亚历山大·d·门希科夫的战地总理府”)中的文件组成的。对档案材料和出版材料进行全面研究,对其中所载资料进行比较,从而能够拟订和分析与签署和批准和平条约有关的主要问题。分析。阿德里安堡和平的基础是君士坦丁堡和平条约(1712年4月5日)的条款,这是特命全权大使P. Shafirov和M. Sheremetev与崇高的Porte达成的协议。奥斯曼帝国的大臣们对波兰和克里米亚问题所作的补充不符合彼得一世的利益。“关于克里米亚的付款”的措辞是长期外交斗争的结果,使问题悬而未决。1713年6月22日,俄国大使和奥斯曼大臣根据条约的文本交换了意见。6月13日,彼得一世签署的和平协议确认书的交付时间(90天)开始倒计时。要求派遣一名大使批准条约的要求还与崇高门户继续就克里米亚付款问题进行谈判的意图有关。结果。俄国大使设法阻止了对经沙皇确认的协议的修改。崇高之门对结束战争的兴趣不亚于俄国。阿德里安堡和约的条款反映了奥斯曼政府的利益,奥斯曼政府拒绝以武力支持克里米亚可汗的要求。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
91
审稿时长
7 weeks
期刊最新文献
“From Default to Interest”: Domestic Anti-War Thought in the Second Half of the 19th – Beginning of the 20th Centuries in Soviet Historiography Intentional Artifiсial Cranial Deformation in the Late Sarmatian Population (Paleopathological Aspect) New Neolithic Site of Priozernaya in the Lower Volga Region The Problem of Forming a Sample for Bioarchaeological Research (Based on the Results of the Study of Paleoanthropological Materials of the Lower Volga Region) USSR in Civil Wars in the Countries of the Third World in the Second Half of the 1970s (On the Example of Angola and Afghanistan)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1