Navigation – Plan du site
The Horde Islamic Legacies

The Takht Eli Khanate: The State System at the Twilight of the Golden Horde

Le khanat de Takht Eli : le système étatique au crépuscule de la Horde d’Or
Vadim V. Trepavlov
p. vol. 143


Résumé : La structure administrative du khanat de Takht Eli (nom donné dans les sources à la Grande Horde au xve-xvie siècle) était largement calquée sur celle de la Horde d’Or. Cependant, au xve siècle, les rouages et les institutions étatiques furent affaiblis et simplifiés dans la mesure où les espaces agricoles, situés en périphérie, dans les régions du Dniepr et du Caucase nord, étaient restreints et offraient un rendement trop faible pour constituer une base économique suffisante à la continuation de l’empire nomade. Le khanat de Takht Eli vivait au rythme de la Maison du khan et avait la charge de son administration, une caractéristique essentielle des empires nomades d’Eurasie. A la différence de la Horde d’Or, le khanat ne disposait plus de moyens de coercition efficaces pour canaliser ses sujets récalcitrants. Du fait de l’amoindrissement continu des revenus agricoles, rendant problématique la subsistance des populations du khanat, et de la déliquescence des leviers de contrôle et de pouvoir de l’État, l’organisation politique de Takht Eli peut donc difficilement être considérée comme un État à part entière. On ne peut pour autant comparer le khanat de Takht Eli à une structure sociale primitive du type « chefferie complexe ». La hiérarchie sophistiquée des tribus et des begs du khanat, et les divisions territoriales qui en découlaient, ainsi que de la persistance de la civilisation urbaine de la Horde d’Or – l’Islam étant à l’origine de la culture urbaine en Basse Volga – montre que la Grande Horde pourrait être comparée au khanat Uzbek et définie comme un État embryonnaire, à une étape transitoire entre une chefferie complexe et une forme d’État en devenir.

Haut de page

Texte intégral

1The Great Horde is a historiographical term for a part of the former Jochid ulus, or Golden Horde, in the south of Eastern Europe in the 15th c. The natives called it Takht Eli (i.e. the Country of the Throne). Its territory included the Lower Volga region, the steppes between the Volga and the Dnieper, and, for some time, the Transvolga region. The Great Horde remained under the control of the central government (Saray) after the secession of the newly formed khanates in Kazan, Astrakhan, Kasimov, Siberia, and Crimea. The goal of this article is to reconstruct the political structure of the Great Horde.

The khan and the tribal aristocracy

  • 1 The Polish chronicler apparently recorded the Turkic phrase erkli kishi (“a free, unfettered man”) (...)

2The administrative structure of the Great Horde was inherited from the Jochid ulus. However, the historical circumstances of the 15th c. lead to a simplification and a shrinkage of the state apparatus. The Great Horde was ruled by a monarch who bore the title khan. Maciej of Miechów (1517: 18) wrote that the ruler of the Great Horde was “called Ir tli ksi, which means a free man. He is also called Ulucham, that is a great lord or great emperor”. He was thus both a great khan (ulu(g) khan) and a free man.1

3At the turn of the 16th c. the title of the heir apparent, kalga, appeared in the Great Horde. Ḥajji Aḥmad (Hadjike, Kodjak, Hozyak), Khan Shaykh Aḥmad’s younger brother, was the first to carry this title.

4Beklerbek (ulugh bek) was the third most important office in the Great Horde. This office was monopolised by the Manghits of Beklerbek Edigü’s (c.1396-1419) family. Under Kučuk Muḥammad, the first khan of the Great Horde, the position was occupied by Edigü’s sons Mansur, Nawruz, and Ghazi. Under Khan Aḥmad it was occupied by Timur b. Mansur, and under Khan Aḥmad’s successors by Timur’s son Tavaqqul and Mansur’s grandsons Janquvvat and Hajike b. Din-Sufi.

5Khan, kalga, and beklerbek together formed the triad of supreme rulers of the yurt (state). This structure is reflected in ambassador Kubensky’s report to Moscow, written in the summer of 1500: “And the tsardom is possessed. . .now by Shih-Ahmet, and the kalga is Hozyak saltan, [who is] also Ahmat’s son, and the prince [knyaz] is Tevekel, Temir’s son” (Karpov, 1884: 323).

6In Muscovy the title of beklerbek was referred to as “his [the khan’s] grand duke” and “the tsar’s official [ryadets]”. In Lithuania it was referred to as “grand duke” and “his [the khan’s] hetman”. Gifts from Vilnius were sent to Beklerbek Timur as hetmanovi carskiemu kniaziu (tsar’s prince hetman) (Shakhmatov, 1921: 193; Stryjkowski, 1846: 284; Tikhomirov, 1959: 256). As the head and commander-in-chief of the nomadic, non-dynastic aristocracy, the governor of the western part of the Horde, and the commander of the right wing of its army, the beklerbek was nominally equal to the Grand Dukes of Muscovy and Lithuania. However, the latter were sovereign monarchs and preferred to consider themselves equals of the khans, not of the chief beks. In 1500, the Grand Duke of Lithuania, Alexander Jagiellon, wrote to the Nogay beks: “Prior to this time our brother Shig Ahmat and your brother grand prince Tyuvikel [Tavakkul] sent their ambassadors to us to enquire about our health” (Banionis, 1994: 165, emphasis added). This indicates that Alexander thought himself equal to the khan and placed his addressees at the same level as Beklerbek Tavakkul.

7Pachkalov (2005: 239-241; 2007: 35-36) studied coins minted in Khan Aḥmad’s name and concluded that they were coined in the Timur Bek Bazaar, the headquarters of Timur b. Mansur, which was located either in the Manghit ulus in the Dnieper region (which seems most likely) or in the Lower Volga region. Pachkalov (2005: 239-241; 2007: 35-36) suggests that, from the reign of Kučuk Muḥammad onwards, the beklerbek controlled the mint. If this is true, the great beks appropriated one of the main rights of sovereign monarchs in the Islamic world, namely sikka, the right to mint coins.

  • 2 Yurt - nomadic territory; in a broad sense it can be understood as appanage or state.
  • 3 The Jochid ulus was divided into a right (western) and a left (eastern) wing, both of which constit (...)

8In the 14th c. some of the Golden Horde beklerbeks were so powerful that they even controlled the throne. In the 15th c. Great Horde they did not have such power. However, in contrast to the previous century, the office of beklerbek did become one of the most important offices of the state apparatus. Its duties were not restricted to war and diplomacy but also included the everyday governance of the yurt2. The factors driving this development were twofold. First, it had to do with the slow decline of the bureaucratic apparatus and the flow of administrative duties from the chancelleries to the nomadic headquarters of khans and beks. Second, it had to do with changing demographics and cattle distributions in the region between the Volga and the Dnieper. All life of the Great Horde was now concentrated in the territory of the secondary right wing, which was historically controlled by the Golden Horde’s beklerbeks.3

9It is commonly agreed that in the post-Golden Horde yurts there was always a council of four karachi beks (i.e. heads of leading clans, also referred to as els). Schamiloglu (1984: 283-297) claimed that this was already the case in the late Golden Horde on the basis of later evidence from Crimea. Long before him, Velyaminov-Zernov (1864: 411-437), who knew the relevant sources very well, had stated that karachi beks existed in Kazan, Siberia, Kasimov, and in the Nogay Horde. However, he did not mention that there were always four bek-advisers. More than 150 years have passed since the publication of Velyaminov-Zernov’s great book but there is still no reliable evidence for the existence of a council of four karachi beks in the Volga region or in the Eastern yurts. However, there is clear evidence for the existence of four karachi beks in the Great Horde. This evidence is found in a letter sent by Khan Shaykh Aḥmad to three Glinsky princes in Lithuania in the summer of 1502:

Mamay’s Kiyat princes are rightful children, being there beside my brother [i.e. in Lithuania under Grand Duke Alexander], but here beside me in my tsardom, both to the right and to the left ulans princes, are four karachis that are greater than Kiyat princes and servants of your brotherhood. However, I have no one greater and better than [they] (Banionis, 1994: 180, emphasis added).

  • 4 This flattering rhetoric about the Kiyats, the compatriots of the Glinsky, is explained by Shaykh A (...)

10The khan was thus writing about four karachis, who were “greater” than the Kiyats even though the latter were great and his best servants.4

11Schamiloglu argued that the majority of the population of the Great Horde descended from the Manghit, Kiyat, Saljiut, and Qonggirad tribes (Schamiloglu, 1984). According to Iskhakov, they constituted the ruling elite (Khakimov, 2009: 326). I have not yet come across any references that would confirm the presence of Saljiut and Qonggirad tribes in the Great Horde. A dispute between the Lithuanian Tatar marshal (marszałek) Ibragim Temirchich and the Petrovichev family in 1517-1525 shows which tribes were considered “aristocratic” (Antanavičius, Baliulis 2001: 169, 383; Pietkiewicz, 2003: 369). The Naimans and Alchins were the most important and had the privilege to set next to the Jochid dynasts. They were followed in importance by the Uyshuns. When the mighty Manghits are added, we get the four aristocratic lineages from which the four karachi princes, mentioned in the khan’s letter, originated.

12Sources usually refer to the ruling elite of the Great Horde as ulan princes (i.e. oglans and beks). At the time, oglans were members of the House of Jochi that did not belong to the family of the ruling khan. The male members of the family carried the title sultan. This triad of aristocratic ranks is mentioned in a chronicle entry made on the arrival of the Tatars at the Ugra River in 1480: “ . . . Tsar Ahmad is coming with the whole Horde and with tsarevichi [oglans], sultans, and princes [beks]” (Shakhmatov, 1921: 199). It was the council of the oglans and the beks, rather than the council of the khan and the four karachi begs, that made the most important decisions. Diplomatic records indicate that the khan made decisions after having a council (rada) with his noble compatriots: “. . .we assembled all ulans and princes and had a council between ourselves”, “. . .we, together with princes, after consulting ulans, approached this matter”, “our ulans and princes told our father. . .”, and so on (Banionis, 1994: 125, 138; 2007: 84, 88).

The Horde officials

13In other yurts we know of the existence of a quriltai, a general council of all the estates, described in Russian texts as “the whole Kazan land” or “the whole Siberian land” (Bychkov,1859: 266, 291; Kuntsevich, 2000: 478). No similar institution is known to have existed in the Great Horde. At the pinnacle of the Golden Horde’s power, the quriltai almost ceased to exist as a functioning governing institution because it was overshadowed by the sovereign will of the monarch and the administrative competence of the state bureaucracy. However, in the post-Golden Horde world a revival of old institutions took place, which included the quriltai and the council of the four karachi beks. The latter was a continuation of ancient Tatar-Mongol political practices.

  • 5 In the Polish-Lithuanian state, a marshal (marszałek) was a court official with ceremonial and judi (...)

14Information about officials in the Great Horde is minimal. Shaykh Aḥmad sent “Molzozoda, the great molna of the bazaar of Ahmat’s children” as an ambassador to Crimea, who wrote letters in his name (Karpov, 1884: 354). This molna (mawlānā, a religious scholar) also looked after the ordo-bazaar (i.e. the khan’s court and its nöker-guards, chancelleries, and economic offices). However, it is possible that he was simply the chief Muslim figure at the ordo-bazaar. In the list of Lithuanian grants to Shaykh Aḥmad’s officials, there is a payment to “Obdula, tsar Shig Ahmat’s marshal [marszałek]” (Baliulis et al., 1995: 60).5 The Description of the Transvolga Tatars, who were bailed out, composed in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in 1506, mentions marshals (marszałeks), tsars, komorniki, and kołuczki (Baliulis, 2007: 68; AGAD, f. Metrika Litewska, sygn. 191d, l. 18). The term komornik had several meanings, including that of “junior court official”. Kołuczk (most likely from the Turkic kollukchi, kullukchi) means guard or law enforcer.

  • 6 In my opinion the title of daruga of Ryazan is not really applicable to Timur. The functions of dar (...)

15A key element of the Horde’s bureaucratic apparatus, the daruga (i.e. the head of a town or a district, usually with a settled population), is mentioned only once in the available sources. In 1470, during negotiations with the Poles, Khan Aḥmad was incited against Ivan III by Prince Timur, the daruga of Ryazan, and others (Presnyakov, 2007: 224).6 Apparently, this official was responsible for the affairs of the Grand Duchy of Ryazan, similar to the duties of the daruga of Moscow at the time of Ulug Muḥammad (Platonov, 2000: 15).

  • 7 The Giray’s mint and treasury were located in Qïrq Yer.

16The ordo-bazaar moved with the khan across the steppe. It could be split between co-rulers, as happened in 1501, when “Shi-Ahmet. . .shared the bazaar with his brother Seit Mahmut” (Karpov, 1884: 358). Often, when a khan was overthrown by a competitor, the ordo-bazaar was captured and added to the victor’s possessions. That happened in 1502 after the Crimeans’ victory over the Great Horde. In Mengli Girays’ own words, “he took the bazaar and the whole horde” (Baliulis et al., 1995: 74). In 1515, the Crimean bek Devlet-Bahty described this event as follows: “. . .our sovereign took the Bazaar of the Horde” (Karpov, Shtendman, 1895: 174). Shaykh Aḥmad, who took refuge in Lithuania, believed that his possessions and treasury, captured by the Crimean Tatars, were kept in the fortress of Qïrq Yer. He had a plan to recover them: “My Bazaar is in Perekop [i.e. Crimea], put in a safe place in Kirkel, and I intend to return it intact, for I do not want it to happen that I could not return my fathers’ bazaar from the tsar of Perekop” (RGADA, f. 389, inventory 1, folder 7, sheet 1017; Syroyechkovsky, 1940: 5, 23).7

Islam and the Muslim clergy

17Bennigsen and Lemercier-Quelquejay (1972, 330) argued that there were three unifying elements that guaranteed the unity of the steppe populations in the polities that sprang from the Mongol Empire—from Crimea to Siberia, from Kazan to Turkestan: the Chinggisids’ monopoly over the khan’s office, the nomadic clans, and Islam. I agree with them regarding the first two elements but would like to accord a somewhat different importance to the role of Islam. The Muslims of the Golden Horde, especially the aristocracy and nomads, were indeed united both by their conversion to Islam and through the institution of the sayyid (i.e. a head of the local Islamic clergy). It is certainly not accidental that in some post-Golden-Horde khanates sayyids traced their genealogies to the common ancestors of the old Jochid ulus (Iskhakov, 1995: 105-107; 1997; Iskhakov & Izmaylov, 2007: 205-206). However, if we consider the events during and following the disintegration of the Golden Horde, we do not see any religious unity. Islam played a limited role in Golden Horde politics. It was mainly an official ideology and did not prevent internal conflicts. The ties between sayyids in different khanates cannot be considered an important unifying factor in inter-yurt relations.

18However, clergymen did play a key role in the internal life and international politics of the Tatar yurts. The mawlānā was already discussed above. In the sources one also finds references to sayyids and ḥajji, who were appointed as heads of embassies to neighbouring states (Baliulis, 2007: 88; Banionis, 1994: 138, 178-179). Among the “good people” from the Horde, who were held as captives in Moscow at different times, there were, according to one letter from Khan Shaykh Aḥmad, both a sayyid and priests (Banionis, 1994: 181).

19Among such figures, the sayyid Ḥajji Aḥmad was especially prominent. He was equally respected in both the Great Horde and Crimea but was apparently living in the Great Horde. After the devastation of the Great Horde by the Crimeans in 1502, Ḥajji-Aḥmad found himself in Lithuanian lands alongside other refugees. According to Mengli Giray, “. . .that sayyid was honoured both by me and by Shahmat [Shaykh Aḥmad, khan of the Great Horde]” (Baliulis et al., 1995: 73). This was followed by a request to send the sayyid to the Crimean yurt. Mengli Giray’s son described Ḥajji Aḥmad as “our hajji [bogomol’ec] from the times of our fathers and grandfathers” (Karpov & Shtendman, 1895: 511). The Girays demanded the release of the sayyid from Lithuania, not only out of respect for his reputation and learning, but also because they were annoyed by Ḥajji Aḥmad’s patronage of Horde emigrants, including Shaykh Aḥmad’s people.

The problem of territorial division

20The Great Horde did not have the strict administrative and territorial division that characterised its great predecessor, the Jochid ulus of the 13-14th c. Safargaliev tried to trace such a division in a yarlïq granted to Ivan III by Aḥmad (Safargaliev, 1996). The original manuscript is dated by different scholars to the period between 1472 and 1480 (Gorskiy, 2000: 175-177) and contains the following phrase: “From the four ends of the earth, from the twelve seashores, from seventy hordes, from the Great Horde” (Bazilevich, 2001: 147, emphasis added). Safargaliev (1996: 517) interpreted these “seventy hordes” as seventy smaller hordes and uluses into which the decentralised Great Horde was split. Grigoriev (1987: 38) criticised this literal interpretation of the highly rhetorical introduction of the yarlïq, which moreover could be a corrupted copy of the lost Turkic original. He understood the reference to the seventy hordes as a literary device, aimed at adjusting the number of hordes to the magical number 7 (Grigoriev, 1987: 38). Grigoriev’s scepticism seems justified. In the documents I am familiar with there are no references to any institutions that can be connected with the seventy hordes mentioned in Aḥmad’s yarlïq.

21The typical nomadic division into two wings definitely existed in the khanate. The civilisation of the Golden Horde was waning and steppe society gradually returned to an earlier stage of its development. Under these conditions, the two-wing division of people and hordes appeared natural to the Tatars. However, we do not have enough information about the organisation of the wings system and cannot determine the geographical locations of the right and left wings (traditionally, in the west and east, respectively). Initially, the Volga may have been the border between the two, but later migrations to the river’s east bank may have changed that.

22Above I quoted Shaykh Aḥmad’s letter about the Kiyats: “to the left and to the right [there are] ulan princes”, which indicates there were oglans and beks of the right and left wings in the Horde. It is also known that the army, and therefore, the population of the Horde, was split into two wings. In 1484, Khan Murtaza promised King Casimir IV that he would try to prevent any damage to his lands from “the right hand and from the left hand, or from those standing beside me or from my brothers, my children. . .” (Lappo, 1910: 348-349). The right hand and the left hand (on kol and sol kol, the Turkic terms for the wings) are also mentioned in yarlïqs from different periods and in other sources. They constituted an essential element of a sovereign nomadic polity, which, in spite of its weakness, the Great Horde still was.

23The nomadic population of the Horde was organised into ulus communities. We do not know for sure, but we can assume that the lower classes of Tatar society had a life of their own and were struggling to survive amid constant economic difficulties and attacks by enemies. The Great Horde was not a monolithic social entity. Contemporary sources contain several traces of conflicts between the elites and the masses, the latter being led by tribal beks. In 1492, a Moscow envoy reported from Crimea that “the Horde. . .moved to Pyatigorie but some uluses did not migrate with the Horde, instead they moved. . .to the Volga, and the Horde followed the uluses to the Volga. . .They went to the Volga in order to have enough food” (Karpov, 1884: 167). Here there is a disagreement between the migration routes of the governing body, the Horde, and the common people of the ulus. The ordo-bazaar did not wish to stay in Pyatigorie, dangerously separated from its subjects, and followed them to the Volga. Six years later there was a similar situation, when the uluses decided not to migrate to the Caucasus but instead moved to the Don River: “There is a rumor. . . that Shaykh Aḥmad did not want [to go] here, but the uluses did not want to be close to the Cherkess, and Shaykh Aḥmad moved with them to the Don” (Karpov, 1884: 358). In both cases, the uluses decided it was too risky to stay with their flocks near the aggressive Cherkess, and the khan had to follow the route chosen by his subjects.

24By analogy with other nomadic polities, we can assume that certain els had designated territories within the khanate. There is reliable evidence for this for the Manghits. There was a yurt of the Manghits within the Great Horde. Under Khan Aḥmad in the 1460s, this yurt was governed by beklerbek Timur, whose permanent residence was located in this area. In 1485, the ulus of prince Timur was attacked by Mengli Giray (Bychkov, 1859: 216). In accordance with the rank and rights of the beklerbek, the Manghits migrated in the western part of the Horde, the Dnieper steppes, and formed the right wing (Karpov, 1884: 119). Timur died in the mid-1480s, and his office and yurt were inherited by his younger relatives. One of them, Ḥajjike (Azika) became the beklerbek of Khan Shaykh Aḥmad. In 1491, Mengli Giray referred to events “in the Horde, in the ulus of the Manghits”, as “events in Azika’s ulus ” (Karpov, 1884: 124).

25After the destruction of the Great Horde, the steppes of the lower Volga region were inhabited by Manghits that had switched to Crimean patronage and remained on their ancestral lands. Shag-Magmud mirza from the Manghit yurt was a member of the khan’s embassy to Moscow in 1516 (Karpov & Shtendman, 1895: 339). In 1546, the Nogay mirzas, relatives of the Crimean Manghits, proclaimed to the Crimean khan: “You should know: the Dnieper is our land, and your Tatars should not move alongside Dnieper” (RGADA, f. 123, inventory 1, folder 9, sheet 53). In a document dated to 1516, Khan Muḥammad Giray I said to the Manghit mirza Tenish, Timur’s nephew: “Your ulus is on the Dnieper” (Karpov, Shtendman, 1895: 253).

  • 8 When the source says “Nogay”, it refers to the Manghit yurt within the Great Horde and the Crimean (...)

26In addition to their subjugation to the khan, the Great Horde Manghits were considered subjects of their bek. In 1564, Divey, the head of the Crimean Manghits, told Afanasii Nagoi, the Russian envoy in Crimea, that he agreed to fight the Poles alongside the Russian tsar. However, in return he required the same gifts (pominki) that used to be sent to his “grandfather prince Timur. . .who [ruled] his own yurt in Nogay [territory]”. The envoy replied that “the great payment” was given to Timur “because he was a sovereign in his yurt, but you are serving. . .the Crimean tsar”. Yet, Divey repeated time and again: “My grandfather Temir was prince [knyaz] in his yurt in Nogay [territory]” (RGADA, f. 123, inventory 1, folder 11, sheet 230, 230 verso, emphasis added).8

Defining the Great Horde Statehood

27Some time ago I discussed the regression of the eastern yurts’ statehood (i.e. the Uzbek khanate founded by Abū’l-Khayr and the Nogay Horde) after the disintegration of the Golden Horde (Trepavlov, 2001: 548-558). It seems that my conclusions regarding the gradual waning of Qipchaq-Golden Horde statehood are also applicable to the Great Horde.

28Similar to Abū’l-Khayr’s khanate, the internal life of the Great Horde was controlled by the administration of the khan’s headquarters, which was typical of the nomadic organisation in Eurasia. The agricultural periphery of the nomadic Uzbeks (i.e. the banks of Syr Darya) and the Tatars of the Great Horde (i.e. the Dnieper region and Pyatigorie) was too small to sustain the economic foundation of their empire. These regions were also plagued by regular conflicts between Uzbeks and Timurids on the one hand, and between Tatars and Cherkess on the other.

29The main difference between these two khanates and the Golden Horde lies in the fact that their rulers lacked effective means of coercion to control disloyal subjects. Beks that were displeased with their khan’s policies could move their uluses to other lands without any punishment, or even remove themselves from the khan’s control without relocating. The only way for the khan to attract els and their leaders was to wage regular wars with his neighbours. The rulers of the Golden Horde, who operated under stable political conditions, could not afford such military activities and also had no need for them.

30With the almost complete loss of the agricultural foundation of the economy and without any effective power structures, the khan of the Great Horde, Kučuk Muḥammad, and his successors found themselves leading a polity that can barely be considered a state. At the same time, the complex hierarchy of els and of their leaders, the supra-tribal territorial division, and the remnants of the urban Islamic civilisation of the Golden Horde, especially in the Lower Volga, do not allow us to describe the Great Horde as a primitive social structure, such as a complex chiefdom. Perhaps, similar to the Uzbek khanate, the Great Horde can be defined as an inchoate state, which occupied the intermediate stage between a complex chiefdom and a typical early state (Claessen & Skalnik, 1978).


32AGAD: Archiwum główne akt dawnych w Warszawie (The Central Archive of Ancient Acts in Warsaw)

33RGADA: Rossiyskiy gosudarstvenniy arkhiv drevnikh aktov (The Russian State Archive of Ancient Acts)

Haut de page



Primary Sources

ANTANAVIČIUS Darius, and BALIULIS Algirdas (eds.), 2001, Lietuvos Metrika. Knyga Nr 12 (1522–1529), Vilnius, Žara.

BALIULIS Algirdas (ed.), 2007, Lietuvos Metrika. Knyga Nr 6 (1494–1506), Vilnius, LII leidykla.

BALIULIS Algirdas, FIRKOVIČIUS Romualdas, and ANTANAVIČIUS Darius (eds.), 1995, Lietuvos Metrika. Knyga Nr 8, Vilnius, Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla.

BANIONIS Egidijus (ed.), 1994, Lietuvos Metrika. Knyga Nr 5 (1427–1506), Vilnius, Mokslas.

BYCHKOV Afanasy (ed.), 1859, The Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles 8: The Continuation of the Chronicle according to the Voskresensky Copy (Polnoye sobraniye russkikh letopisey 8: Prodolzheniye letopisi po Voskresenskomu spisku), St. Petersburg, Tipografiya E. Pratsa.

KARPOV Gennady (ed.), 1884, Sbornik imperatorskogo Russkogo istoricheskogo obshchestva, vol. 41, The Monuments of the Diplomatic Relations of the Muscovite State with the Crimean and Nogay Hordes and with Turkey (Pamyatniki diplomaticheskikh snosheniy Moskovskogo gosudarstva s Krymskoyu i Nagayskoyu Ordami i s Turtsiyey), vol. I, St. Petersburg, Tipografiya F. Eleonskago i K°.

KARPOV Gennady et al. (eds.), 1895, Sbornik imperatorskogo Russkogo istoricheskogo obshchestva, vol. 95, The Monuments of the Diplomatic Relations of the Muscovite State with the Crimea, the Nogays and Turkey (Pamyatniki diplomaticheskikh snosheniy Moskovskogo gosudarstva s Krymom, Nagayami i Turtsiyeyu), vol. II, St. Petersburg, Pechatnya S.P.Yakovleva.

KUNTSEVICH Georgy (ed.), 2000, The Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles 19: History of the Kazan Tsardom (Polnoye sobraniye russkikh letopisey 19: Istoriya o Kazanskom tsarstve), Moscow, Yazyki russkoy kul’tury.

LAPPO Ivan, 1910, Lithuanian Metrika (Litovskaya metrika), section 1, pt. 1, Books of Records (Knigi zapisey), vol. 1, St. Petersburg, Senatskaya tipografiya.

MACIEJ OF MIECHÓW, 1517, Tractatus de duabus Sarmatiis Asiana et Europiana et de contentis in eis. Cracovae.

PIETKIEWICZ Krzysztof (ed.), 2003, Lietuvos Metrika. Knyga Nr 9 (1511–1518), Vilnius, Žara.

PLATONOV Sergei (ed.), 2000, The Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles (Polnoye sobraniye russkikh letopisey), vol. 12, Annalistic Volume Called Patriarshaya or Nikonovskaya Chronicle (Letopisniy sbornik, imenuyemiy Patriarshey ili Nikonovskoy letopisyu), Moscow, Yazyki russkoy kul’tury.

PRESNYAKOV Alexandr (ed.), 2007, The Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles (Polnoye sobraniye russkikh letopisey), vol. 18, Simeonovskaya Chronicle (Simeonovskaya letopis’), Moscow, Znak.

SHAKHMATOV Alexey (ed.), 1921, The Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles (Polnoye sobraniye russkikh letopisey), vol. 24, Tipografskaya Chronicle (Tipografskaya letopis’), Petrograd, 2 Gosudarstvennaya tipografiya.

STRYJKOWSKI Maciej, 1846, Kronika polska, litewska, żmódzka i wszytiéj Rusi Macieja Stryjkowskiego, Warszawa, Warszawa Nak. G.L.Glüsksverga.

TIKHOMIROV Mikhail (ed.), 1959, The Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles (Polnoye sobraniye russkikh letopisey), vol. 26, Vologodsko-Permskaya Chronicle (Vologodsko-Permskaya letopis’), Moscow; Leningrad, Izdatel’stvo Akademii nauk SSSR.


BAZILEVICH Konstantin, 2001, The Foreign Policy of the Russian Centralised State in the Second Half of the 15th Century (Vneshnyaya politika Russkogo tsentralizovannogo gosudarstva. Vtoraya polovina XV veka), Moscow, Territoriya.

BENNIGSEN Alexandre and LEMERCIER-QUELQUEJAY Chantal, 1972, « Le khanat de Crimée au début du XVIe siècle: de la tradition mongole à la suzeraineté ottomane », Cahiers du monde russe et soviétique, 13(3), Paris, Ecole pratique des hautes études, p. 321-337. 

CLAESSEN Henry and SKALNIK Peter (eds), 1978, The Early State, The Hague, Mouton Publishers.

GORSKIY Anton, 2000, Moscow and the Horde (Moskva i Orda), Moscow, Nauka.

GRIGORYEV Arkady, 1987, « The Date of Ahmad’s ‘Yarlyk’ (Vremya napisaniya “yarlyka” Ahmata) », Istoriografiya i istochnikovedeniye istorii stran Azii i Afriki, 10, Leningrad, Leningradsky universitet, p. 28-89.

ISKHAKOV Damir, 1995, The Ethno-Social Structure of the Tatar Khanates. The Case of Kazan and Kasimov Khanates in the 15th—mid-16th cc. (K voprosu ob etnosotsialnoy structure khanstv. Na primere Kazanskogo i Kasimovskogo khanstv XV – ser. XVI vv.), Panorama-forum, 3, Kazan, Institut istorii Akademii nauk Tatarstana, p. 95-107.

, 1997, Sayyids in Late-Golden-Horde Tatar States (Seidy v pozdnezolotoodynskikh tatarskikh gosudarstvakh), Kazan, Iman.

ISKHAKOV Damir and IZMAYLOV Iskander, 2007, Ethno-political History of the Tatars (3rd—mid-16th cc.), (Etnopoliticheskaya istoria tatar (III – seredina XVI vv.)), Kazan, Shkola.

KHAKIMOV Rafael (ed.), 2009, History of the Tatars since the Ancient Times (Istoriya tatar s drevneyshikh vremyon), vol. III, Djuchi Ulus (Golden Horde) 13th—mid-15th Centuries (Ulus Djuchi (Zolotaya Orda). XIII – seredina XV v.), Kazan, Institut istorii imeni Sh. Marjani.

KHOROSHKEVICH Anna, 2001, Russia and the Crimea. From Union to Confrontation. The end of the 15th—beginning of the 16th centuries (Rus’ i Krym. Ot soyuza k protivostoyaniyu. Konets XV – nachalo XVI vv.), Moscow, Editorial URSS.

PACHKALOV Alexandr, 2005, « Mangyt Bik Timur in Jochid Numismatics (Mangytskiy bik Timur v numizmatike Djuchidov) », Vostochnaya Evropa v drevnosti i srednevekovye. Problemy istochnikovedeniya. XVII chteniya pamyati V.T. Pashuto. IV chteniya pamyati A.A. Zimina. Tezisy dokladov, pt. II. Moscow, Institut vseobshchey istorii RAN, p. 239-241.

, 2007, “About the Coins ‘Bik Bazaar’ and ‘Timur Bik Bazaar’” (O monetakh “Bik Bazara” i “Timur Bik Bazara”), Russian Archeology (Rossiyskaya arkheologiya), 2, Moscow, Institut arkheologii RAN, p. 33-38.

SAFARGALIYEV Magomed, 1996, The Disintegration of the Golden Horde. At the Junction of Continents and Civilizations. The phenomenon of the Formation and Disintegration of Empires in 10th -16th Centuries, (Raspad Zolotoi Ordy, Na styke kontinentov i tsivilizatsiy - iz opyta obrazovaniya i raspada imperiy X-XVI vv.), Moscow, Insan.

SCHAMILOGLU Uli, 1984, « The Qaraçi of the Later Golden Horde of the Mongol World Empire », Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi, 4, Wiesbaden, Otto Harrasowitz, 283-297.

TREPAVLOV Vadim, 2001, A History of the Nogay Horde (Istoria Nogayskoy Ordy), Moscow, Vostochnaya literatura.

VELYAMINOV‑ZERNOV Vladimir, 1864, A Study of Kasimov Tsars and Princes (Issledovanie o kasimovskikh tsaryakh i tsarevichakh), vol. 2, St. Petersburg, Tipografiya Akademii nauk.

Haut de page


1 The Polish chronicler apparently recorded the Turkic phrase erkli kishi (“a free, unfettered man”) in the corrupted form Ir tli ksi. The similar clichéd designations “unfettered man” and “unfettered tsar” were used for Tatar monarchs in letters from Muscovy and Poland-Lithuania in the 15th–16th c. (see for example : Khoroshkevich, 2001 : 117-121).

2 Yurt - nomadic territory; in a broad sense it can be understood as appanage or state.

3 The Jochid ulus was divided into a right (western) and a left (eastern) wing, both of which constituted independent khanates. Each was subdivided into two wings.

4 This flattering rhetoric about the Kiyats, the compatriots of the Glinsky, is explained by Shaykh Aḥmad’s request to the Glinsky to act as his intermediaries with Grand Duke Alexander.

5 In the Polish-Lithuanian state, a marshal (marszałek) was a court official with ceremonial and judicial functions.

6 In my opinion the title of daruga of Ryazan is not really applicable to Timur. The functions of daruga and beklerbek are too different.

7 The Giray’s mint and treasury were located in Qïrq Yer.

8 When the source says “Nogay”, it refers to the Manghit yurt within the Great Horde and the Crimean khanate (Trepavlov, 2001).

Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence électronique

Vadim V. Trepavlov, « The Takht Eli Khanate: The State System at the Twilight of the Golden Horde  », Revue des mondes musulmans et de la Méditerranée [En ligne], 143 | octobre 2018, mis en ligne le 12 octobre 2018, consulté le 14 novembre 2018. URL :

Haut de page


Vadim V. Trepavlov

Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

Licence Creative Commons
Les contenus de la Revue des mondes musulmans et de la Méditerranée sont mis à disposition selon les termes de la Licence Creative Commons Attribution - Pas d’Utilisation Commerciale - Partage dans les Mêmes Conditions 4.0 International.

Haut de page