Jump to content

Talk:Cossack Hetmanate/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

The Hetmanate was not a puppet state of the Ottoman Empire

The sources in the article do Not say that the Cossack Hetmanate was controlled by the Ottoman Empire. In fact, the book The European Tributary States of the Ottoman Empire in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries says that the Cossack Hetmanate can't exactly be considered a protectorate of the Ottoman Empire because it never paid tribute to the Ottomans and the Ottomans had no say over who was in charge of the Hetmanate. By contrast, an Ottoman sanjak's ruler was appointed by the Ottoman Empire and it did pay tribute. For example, this was the case with Wallachia and Moldavia.

I'm not saying that the Cossack Hetmanate wasn't dependent on the Ottoman Empire on a certain level, but this terminology is wrong, especially because it is not a defining feature of the Hetmanate.--BoguSlav 03:24, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

@Boguslavmandzyuk: As you can see above, this was discussed but not concluded. My view is that this, and the information regarding agreements with Russia, should be in the body of the article, not the infobox as it implies that the Hetmanate was consistently a subsidiary of both empires (which is not the case). Hopefully, this will wake up other editors who've forgotten to conclude how best to present the content of the article. I'm pinging Alexis Ivanov and Faustian in order to see whether they have any particular preferences. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:43, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Who said it was a puppet? Hopefully you can specify which page number, and paragraph number so I can re-check my sources. It has been months since I checked upon the book. Upon looking through, page 142 Puts Cossack Ukraine as a Province/Sanjak of the Ottoman Empire and in page 137 and 138, Khmelnitsky received an ahdname from the Sultan to make the Ukraine a protectorate/Vassal. The book makes it clear that only Russian Historians argue against it. And in page 141 Doroshenko was willing to re-instate the Ottoman protectorate after defeating Bryukhovetsky and he did. You see here it is clear that they are not on the same level as Moldavia and Wallachia but even greater, Doroshenko made a great deal, they are clearly become an Ottoman protectorate minus the fact they pay tribute/Haraç and have to bring in military assistance towards the Ottoman Sultan any time he needs, but there is no garrison of Janissaries in Ukraine. At page 142, the Ottoman Sultan sent çavuş (messenger) to each of Doroshenko colonel to make sure he "really wanted to be under the Sultan or if Doroshenko had forced them to say this". Are you sure you read the book? Alexis Ivanov (talk) 03:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
The term "puppet state" is the modern-day equivalent of the old term "vassal state". The book is not nearly as black and white as you try to present it, which makes me question your intentions. Its seems like you read a different book than I did. Page 148-149 says "the Ottomans... did not attempt to consolidate their position in Ukraine by building up a strong military presence there. A frontier buffer zone seemed to suit their interests." It talks about the Cossacks repeatedly requesting Ottoman help and not receiving it. In addition page 150 says "we cannot call the hetmanate an Ottoman tributary" and then reluctantly choses the term "vassal", but with many qualifications (not in the traditional meaning of the term, but more like a military alliance). Page 151 talks about "polyvassalage", meaning that the Hetmanate was a vassal state to multiple entities with which it kept up "various bilateral relations". The book then says that more active Ottoman involvement in the Hetmanate would have meant "a more independent Ukrainian state". It is clear to everyone here that the Cossack Hetmanate switched allegiance between the Ottomans, Poles, and Muscovites in a game to stay alive. These were the political games being played by the Cossack Hetmanate's leaders. Page 145 says that "Cossack Ukraine maintained autonomy under Ottoman protection." It's as simple as that.
Going back to my original statement, the Ottomans did not have all of the traditional power over Cossack Ukraine as it did with its sanjaks. You have contributed nothing to this article in terms of content, except your edits to the infobox. Your edits to the article are one-sided, and therefore, inaccurate.--BoguSlav 04:59, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
>The term "puppet state" is the modern-day equivalent of the old term "vassal state".
'Well we are not using such terminology here are we. Vassal isn't an Old term, there is no Vassal States nowadays'
>The book is not nearly as black and white as you try to present it, which makes me question your intentions.
I never said or implied it was black and white, I never presented it as such. I'm also questioning your intentions because as far as I'm aware you show no evidence of reading the book.
>Its seems like you read a different book than I did.
I read the same book.
>Page 148-149 says "the Ottomans... did not attempt to consolidate their position in Ukraine by building up a strong military presence there. A frontier buffer zone seemed to suit their interests."
How is Ottoman's consolidation any evidence lack of vassalage, when the book established it clearly. Have you read page 150 which calls it a Vassal and points to the same points I have already conveyed towards you.>It talks about the Cossacks repeatedly requesting Ottoman help and not receiving it.
Please show me the pages and paragraphs.
>In addition page 150 says "we cannot call the hetmanate an Ottoman tributary"
That is what I said in my previous point, and you ignored it, I'm questioning your comprehensions skills right here. You can be a vassal that is not a tributary like the Crimean Khanate for example.
>and then reluctantly choses the term "vassal"
That is the closest term we have in English to describe their relationship.
>but with many qualifications (not in the traditional meaning of the term, but more like a military alliance).
Same as the Crimean Khanate and the Wallachian and Moldavian principalities
>Page 151 talks about "polyvassalage", meaning that the Hetmanate was a vassal state to multiple entities with which it kept up "various bilateral relations".
Still a vassal of the Ottoman Empire. This is not mutually exclusive to my points.
> The book then says that more active Ottoman involvement in the Hetmanate would have meant "a more independent Ukrainian state".
You are quoting out context "a more independent Ukrainian state would not come to be".
>It is clear to everyone here that the Cossack Hetmanate switched allegiance between the Ottomans, Poles, and Muscovites in a game to stay alive.
Therefore?
>Page 145 says that "Cossack Ukraine maintained autonomy under Ottoman protection." It's as simple as that.
Which further proves my point, Ottoman sultan have the ability to delegate the autonomousness of their protectorates in the Empire.
>Going back to my original statement, the Ottomans did not have all of the traditional power over Cossack Ukraine as it did with its sanjaks.
It didn't need to, because it agreed not to.
>You have contributed nothing to this article in terms of content, except your edits to the infobox.
Petty attacks against me, I was waiting when you are going to make such vile moves against me, I have contributed to many articles, I love editing infoboxes, are you saying I should edit the article before editing the infobox. Please direct me where in Wikipedia it says that. The same way I have changed the flag in the Principality of Transylvania article.
>Your edits to the article are one-sided, and therefore, inaccurate.
How two sided can an Cossack vassalage towards Ottoman Empire be? That is like saying if you edit that the fact nation A is vassal to nation B, you are one-sided, weak argument, you need to find something else to attack me with. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 05:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
  • The term vassal state, especially the term "sanjak", implies that the Ottomans had full control over the Cossack Hetmanate's internal affairs. The Ottomans DID NOT have full control over the Hetmanate. That is why the Cossack Hetmanate was not a puppet state of the Ottoman Empire. In making your case, you have cherry-picked only the parts of the book that mention aspects of the Hetmanate's dependence on the Ottoamsn, when in reality there is considerable ambiguity in the book about how to label the Hetmanate's relationship with the Ottomans. When it comes to the traditional criteria of a vassal state, the book recognizes that this term is technically incorrect. That is why is inappropriate FOR US ON WIKIPEDIA to call the Cossack Hetmanate a sanjak. This is a controversial claim that is disputed WITHIN THE BOOK ITSELF.
  • Going back to the book, "the Ottomans... did not attempt to consolidate their position in Ukraine by building up a strong military presence there. A frontier buffer zone seemed to suit their interests". Now let me break this quote down for you. This means that even though on some level the Porte may have accepted the Hetmanate to be a vassal, they DID NOT COMMIT to ACTUALLY CONSOLIDATING this in practice. So, the Porte may have possibly considered the Hetmanate as a vassal de jure, but de facto, not much was done to turn it into a legitimate vassal state.
  • Regarding the quote "a more independent Ukrainian state would not come to be", please try to comprehend what this means. The book claims that Ottoman dis-involvement resulted in less independence for the Ukrainian state. Therefore, more Ottoman involvement would result in a more independent Ukrainian state. How does this square up with your claim that the Hetmanate was merely a sanjak?
  • "Which further proves my point, Ottoman sultan have the ability to delegate the autonomousness of their protectorates in the Empire". Ummm... No it DOESN'T prove your point. It just proves that this was a military alliance and YOU ARE ASSUMING that the Ottoman sultan decided the degree of autonomy. THAT IS NOT what the book says. The book says that the Hetmanate swore allegiance to the Ottomans in return for protection. The Ottomans DID NOT collect tribute or take over the Hetmanate politically, because the Hetmanate REMAINED AUTONOMOUS. The Hetmanate was NOT SUBSERVIENT to the Porte.
  • As for your personal attacks, I have noticed that you treat everyone who disagrees with you on this talk page as an "attacker" and attacked them. This is inappropriate. Please be WP:CIVIL and follow WP:Etiquette.--BoguSlav 02:54, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
I think that, firstly, we shouldn't be applying modern concepts like 'puppet state' to an era where 'official' relationships were quite different to contemporary times (even for discussions as to the content of the article on the talk page). As I see it, ultimately the only problem here is in the presentation of the infobox... which is hardly insurmountable. If we're to have a section in the infobox outlining political agreements with other states, it would also need to include relationships with the Russian state which, in itself, is problematic for a simple infobox as it covers the transition period from the precursor state to the newly formed Russian Empire.
If anyone has any ideas as to how to create a section in the infobox that somehow informs the reader of how these relationships could be broken down realistically, it would be appreciated. At the moment we only have one such relationship (that is, with the Ottoman Empire) depicted. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Iryna Harpy I agree with you about the presentation of the infobox because the Cossack Hetmanate had bilateral relations with other countries besides the Ottoman Empire, called "polyvassalage" in the book. Defining the Hetmanate to simply be a vassal of the Ottomans places WP:UNDUE weight on one the many international relationships that the Ukrainian state upheld, especially considering the fact that the Ottomans did not consolidate this agreement de facto and this was only a brief period of the Hetmanate's history.--BoguSlav 03:07, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
They did consolidate de-facto and de-jure even if it was a one second agreement, it should be worth mentioning, so your silly antics have no place by looking for excuses under the bed now. Nobody is stopping you for adding more information, you have any other questions Mr.Bogus? Alexis Ivanov (talk) 11:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
>The term vassal state, especially the term "sanjak", implies that the Ottomans had full control over the Cossack Hetmanate's internal affairs.
No it doesn't, Sanjak was used for certain vassals, Doroshenko was assigned to be Sanjakbey.
>The Ottomans DID NOT have full control over the Hetmanate.
I never said that or implied that
>That is why the Cossack Hetmanate was not a puppet state of the Ottoman Empire.
It was a vassal and protectorate of the Ottoman Empire. Nobody used the word puppet, stop spreading misinformation and repeating words that I have never used or mentioned.
> In making your case, you have cherry-picked only the parts of the book that mention aspects of the Hetmanate's dependence on the Ottoamsn, when in reality there is considerable ambiguity in the book about how to label the Hetmanate's relationship with the Ottomans.
I never cherry picked in fact I provided multiple sources, you are the one here is cherry picking and twisting my argument to further push your own goals.
>When it comes to the traditional criteria of a vassal state, the book recognizes that this term is technically incorrect.
It is the closest term we have. Therefore it is the term we use and the term this book and other books used.
>That is why is inappropriate FOR US ON WIKIPEDIA to call the Cossack Hetmanate a sanjak. This is a controversial claim that is disputed WITHIN THE BOOK ITSELF.
It is appropriate. Based on the evidence provided. It is inappropriate because you don't like it and your feelings got hurt?
>Going back to the book, "the Ottomans... did not attempt to consolidate their position in Ukraine by building up a strong military presence there. A frontier buffer zone seemed to suit their interests".
Yes they never put any military presence there, per their agreement.
>Now let me break this quote down for you. This means that even though on some level the Porte may have accepted the Hetmanate to be a vassal, they DID NOT COMMIT to ACTUALLY CONSOLIDATING this in practice.
Let me break it down for you because you are misreading it, they didn't consolidate because they didn't put any military presence there because this is a buffer zone between them and their northern neighbors. Ottomans can have vassals with no military presence in them.
>So, the Porte may have possibly considered the Hetmanate as a vassal de jure, but de facto, not much was done to turn it into a legitimate vassal state.
With that logic every vassal is not de facto, every vassal had their own head managing their local affairs, Crimean Khanate is another example.
>Regarding the quote "a more independent Ukrainian state would not come to be", please try to comprehend what this means.
Please finish the sentence that your wrote, before misquoting it, I hate when people do that, we can see the ways you are trying to do here
>The book claims that Ottoman dis-involvement resulted in less independence for the Ukrainian state. Therefore, more Ottoman involvement would result in a more independent Ukrainian state.
Independent to sort out their own affairs. Not independent to be their own country. You can't apply that analogy when Cossacks were thrown in the pits of war in the Russo-Ottoman wars. If they opt out of their signed agreement then that means a war to bring back them back in to the Imperial sphere.
> How does this square up with your claim that the Hetmanate was merely a sanjak?
Based on the fact that Doroshenko was Sanjak bey and so was Yurii Khmelnytsky
>"Which further proves my point, Ottoman sultan have the ability to delegate the autonomousness of their protectorates in the Empire". Ummm... No it DOESN'T prove your point.
yes it does. They delegated for each of their vassal their duties, and what they pay and what their military presence of Ottoman troops and military assistance that the vassals send to the porte.
>It just proves that this was a military alliance and YOU ARE ASSUMING that the Ottoman sultan decided the degree of autonomy.
This was never a military alliance, in fact being a vassal makes you send military assistance to the Ottoman Sultan himself. So the Sultan needs no military alliance if he can do more than by giving the Cossack the vassalage/protectorate they wanted. Which again proves my point.
>THAT IS NOT what the book says. The book says that the Hetmanate swore allegiance to the Ottomans in return for protection.
Yes, which proves my point that they were a protectorate.
>The Ottomans DID NOT collect tribute or take over the Hetmanate politically,
The Ottomans agreed not to collect tribute from certain vassals like the Cossack Hetmanate and the Crimean Khanate, yet both were vassals and protectorates
>because the Hetmanate REMAINED AUTONOMOUS
Level of autonomous bears nothing towards it's vassalage.
>The Hetmanate was NOT SUBSERVIENT to the Porte.
It was.
>As for your personal attacks, I have noticed that you treat everyone who disagrees with you on this talk page as an "attacker" and attacked them.
That is based on your subjective opinion on what you think of me. It's up to you.
>This is inappropriate. Please be WP:CIVIL and follow WP:Etiquette
Pleases stop misqutoing and start reading more. You are starting to behave unkindly when you misquote purposely and twist my words. And then you come here asking to be civil. I'm being civil with you at the moment. Anytime your feelings get hurt tell me so I can delete it as you wish. Don't want to hurt your feeling. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 12:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

What a long drawn-out way to respond, by commenting on every single fragment of my reply. That was painful to read the play-by-play. Get to your point! I think I will reply to you exactly as you keep replying to me.
>No it doesn't, Sanjak was used for certain vassals,
According to Oxford Dictionary, a sanjak is "one of several administrative districts into which a larger district (vilayet) was divided". Please give me some sources to your definition of a Sanjak and that show that the Hetmanate met these criteria.
>Doroshenko was assigned to be Sanjakbey.
Sources please.
>I never said that or implied that
Yes you did, when you called the Hetmanate a "sanjak" of the Ottoman Empire.
>It was a vassal and protectorate of the Ottoman Empire. Nobody used the word puppet, stop spreading misinformation and repeating words that I have never used or mentioned.
I'm using the modern-day equivalent. Don't you just love to knit-pick at specific words when you run out of things to say?
>I never cherry picked in fact I provided multiple sources, you are the one here is cherry picking and twisting my argument to further push your own goals.
Here you did not address the point that I brought up that there is considerable ambiguity in the book about what to label the Hetmanate. You HAVE cherry-picked only the parts of the book that speak about aspects of the Hetmanate's dependence on the Hetmanate in an attempt to further push your own goals. You were hoping that no one else has the book that you are citing and your misinformation will go unchallenged. I see you have had previous problems with endless arguments on other pages and the users there weren't impressed either.
>It is the closest term we have. Therefore it is the term we use and the term this book and other books used.
This is the term that the book uses only for lack of a better term, because the Hetmanate does not fit traditional criteria of a vassal state.
>It is appropriate. Based on the evidence provided. It is inappropriate because you don't like it and your feelings got hurt?
Don't you love pulling sentences out of context and then pretending like you have proved something? Here I made a list of reasons why it is inappropriate to call the Hetmanate a vassal state based on evidence that I cited, but you pull one sentence out of context and in your mind you have just said something clever. It is inappropriate because it is a controversial claim at best, and inaccurate at worst.
>Yes they never put any military presence there, per their agreement.
The agreement was that they station 1000 janissaries in Kodak. So, NO, this WAS NOT their agreement. This proves that you haven't read the book. The Ottomans did not fulfill the agreement.
>Let me break it down for you because you are misreading it
Okay. Please explain to me how I misread it. You haven't read the book and your keep cherry-picking the parts and wrongly explaining the quotes that I cite, but I will try to follow your logic.
>they didn't consolidate because they didn't put any military presence there because this is a buffer zone between them and their northern neighbors. Ottomans can have vassals with no military presence in them.
This again proves that you haven't read the book. The agreement was that the Ottomans would station their military in the Hetmanate, but they never did. Per the agreement, the Hetmanate could be a vassal if the Ottomans station their military in in the Hetmanate, but they never did it. They didn't consolidate the Hetmanate as their vassal state because they did not follow through with the agreement. I am already expecting you to reply to this paragraph sentence-by-sentence, pulling them out of context. It so much harder for you to formulate an argument against a paragraph.
>With that logic every vassal is not de facto,
No. That is not what I was saying because Ottomans did station their troops in their territories, making it de facto their territory. The Ottomans made this agreement with the Hetmanate, but they didn't follow through. Now I understand why your responses make no sense. You haven't read the book.
>every vassal had their own head managing their local affairs, Crimean Khanate is another example.
What's your point?
>Please finish the sentence that your wrote, before misquoting it, I hate when people do that, we can see the ways you are trying to do here
You haven't read the book. What a hypocritical request of you to make. Almost every quote you make is out of context. This conversation is very difficult to have.
>Independent to sort out their own affairs. Not independent to be their own country. You can't apply that analogy when Cossacks were thrown in the pits of war in the Russo-Ottoman wars.
You definitely didn't get that out of the book. This is YOUR OWN INTERPRETATION. You didn't read the book and you don't know what the word "state" means. The book talks about an independent Ukrainian state. Please look it up, because you will be embarrassed that your statement above did not make any sense.
>If they opt out of their signed agreement then that means a war to bring back them back in to the Imperial sphere.
You have lost me with your pronouns. Who is "they" and "them"? Also, I would like some sources for this claim.
>Based on the fact that Doroshenko was Sanjak bey and so was Yurii Khmelnytsky
Please give me a source that says they were called "Sanjak bey".
>yes it does. They delegated for each of their vassal their duties, and what they pay and what their military presence of Ottoman troops and military assistance that the vassals send to the porte.
Again, you are adding your own spin. You are still assuming that the Ottoman sultan decided, but the book says that the Hetmanate and the Ottoman Empire made a bilateral agreement that defined their relationship. The sultan did not delegate the degree of autonomy.
>This was never a military alliance, in fact being a vassal makes you send military assistance to the Ottoman Sultan himself.
It WAS a military alliance. It was a military alliance that never quite turned in to a vassal state, even though the Hetman really wanted it to happen. The Ottomans never fully followed through with the request.
>So the Sultan needs no military alliance if he can do more than by giving the Cossack the vassalage/protectorate they wanted. Which again proves my point.
The syntax of this sentence is brutal. I have no idea what it's trying to say. This is weak English. I don't understand this.
>Yes, which proves my point that they were a protectorate.
Israel receives protection from the United States. Do you call Israel a protectorate of the United States. No! Because this is a military alliance.
>The Ottomans agreed not to collect tribute from certain vassals like the Cossack Hetmanate and the Crimean Khanate, yet both were vassals and protectorates The Ottomans agreed not to collect tribute because they knew this would never happen, because the Hetmanate remained independent. The agreement with the Ottomans just added some military obligations to the Hetmanate. The Hetmanate was not a vassal.
>Level of autonomous bears nothing towards it's vassalage.
You made this up in order to advance your narrative. Please provide sources.
>It was.
It wasn't subservient to the Ottoman Empire. Please provide me with some specific decrees of the Ottoman Sultan (other than military cooperation, like the joint war against Poland-Lithuania, because this was a military alliance) from reliable sources that show that the Hetmanate was taking commands from the Ottomans
>That is based on your subjective opinion on what you think of me. It's up to you.
That is based on your replies to myself and other users on this talk page. Should I quote them for you directly?
>Pleases stop misquoting and start reading more.
What is that supposed to mean? Perhaps you should read WP:Etiquette and WP:CIVIL, instead of keeping up with the insults. Clearly it looks like YOU haven't read these pages.
>You are starting to behave unkindly when you misquote purposely and twist my words.
"The best defense is a good offense" in your opinion, isn't it? When your arguments start running out, just attack the person you're arguing with.
>And then you come here asking to be civil. I'm being civil with you at the moment. Anytime your feelings get hurt tell me so I can delete it as you wish. Don't want to hurt your feeling.
Ah, some more sarcasm and insults from Mr. Ivanov. Sounds like you have a lot of substance to your argument.--BoguSlav 20:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

>What a long drawn-out way to respond
What did you expect one word or two words, or did you expect me to give up? How long is based on how long you responded to my initial comment. So don't act surprised.
> by commenting on every single fragment of my reply. That was painful to read the play-by-play.
Painful for you , pleasure for me, this is how I write things.
>Get to your point! I think I will reply to you exactly as you keep replying to me.
Good for you.
>According to Oxford Dictionary, a sanjak is "one of several administrative districts into which a larger district (vilayet) was divided". Please give me some sources to your definition of a Sanjak and that show that the Hetmanate met these criteria.
Doroshenko and Yurii Khmelnytsky were Sanjakbey. The title of the vassal in Ukraine was called Sanjak. They were given a berat and a horsetail.
>Sources please.
Ask you shall receive "By 1669 the Porte issued a patent (berat, nişan) granting Doroshenko all of Cossack Ukraine as an Ottoman Sancak or province." p.142, it feels good when I have to shut you down for good and let you eat your words, happy now.
>Yes you did, when you called the Hetmanate a "sanjak" of the Ottoman Empire.
You are twisting my words again yet again, can you stop spreading misinformation, Enough with these childish lies you are pushing against me. You do realize I said they were Sanjak, I never said they have "have full control over the Hetmanate.", please increase your comprehension skill.
>I'm using the modern-day equivalent
You need to stop using since I never used any modern day equivalent. But if you want to use it you can, But I will remind again and again that I never called them puppet.
> Don't you just love to knit-pick at specific words when you run out of things to say?
It is not nitpicking, when I never used the word puppet, I consider it blatant false statement.
>Here you did not address the point that I brought up that there is considerable ambiguity in the book about what to label the Hetmanate.
Which part of the book? Please bring it forth.
> You HAVE cherry-picked only the parts of the book that speak about aspects of the Hetmanate's dependence on the Hetmanate in an attempt to further push your own goals.
I never cherry picked, in fact I added the reference that Iryna told me to add per Wikipedia rules, since I posted an amibgious reference in the beginning, with your logic, If I posted the age of an Ottoman Sultan in certain battle, I'm cherry picking.
>You were hoping that no one else has the book that you are citing and your misinformation will go unchallenged
I never hoped, that again another lie, HAHAHAHAHAHHA, continue with your lies. You are the one who is misinformed, I added the information properly In fact you challenged nothing, you are running in circles.
>I see you have had previous problems with endless arguments on other pages and the users there weren't impressed either.
And I see have I had previous excellent relationship with endless users that I have cooperated in various Wikipedia pages. You can choose what you want to see, it's up to you.
>This is the term that the book uses only for lack of a better term
So we will use that term. Since it's the closest term we have.
>because the Hetmanate does not fit traditional criteria of a vassal state.
It does fit perfectly.
>Don't you love pulling sentences out of context and then pretending like you have proved something?
You are the one who actually did that, and I helped you with your English, by adding the rest of the quote, don't you love when we help each other.
>Here I made a list of reasons why it is inappropriate to call the Hetmanate a vassal state based on evidence that I cited
And I have countered every claim you posted.
>but you pull one sentence out of context and in your mind you have just said something clever. It is inappropriate because it is a controversial claim at best, and inaccurate at worst.
In my mind I have said something that was needed, I never assigned any intelligence level, it is actually not controversial, you think it's controversial. But that doesn't mean it is.
>The agreement was that they station 1000 janissaries in Kodak.
Doroshenko never agreed to that, that is why they were never stationed.
>So, NO, this WAS NOT their agreement. This proves that you haven't read the book. The Ottomans did not fulfill the agreement.
The Ottoman did fulfill their agreement, these were terms and Doroshenko as being the subject has the right to choose the terms.
>Okay. Please explain to me how I misread it. You haven't read the book and your keep cherry-picking the parts and wrongly explaining the quotes that I cite, but I will try to follow your logic.
Me not reading the book is your opinion and not a fact, I have read the book multiple times, before. You are the one misquoting and then you say I'm misquoting. That makes no sense
>This again proves that you haven't read the book.
That actually proves I read the book.
>The agreement was that the Ottomans would station their military in the Hetmanate
That wasn't the agreement, the agreement was that the Ottomans will not station any troops in Kodak
>but they never did.
Because they agreed not to put troops there
> Per the agreement, the Hetmanate could be a vassal if the Ottomans station their military in in the Hetmanate, but they never did it.
You could be a vassal without a military present of your ottoman overlords. You can be a vassal that pay not tribute, there are different agreements that each vassals reached with the Ottoman Empire, and Doroshenko secured the agreement of not putting any troops in Kodak, per the agreement. Even if the Ottomans had no military presence they are still a vassal.
>They didn't consolidate the Hetmanate as their vassal state because they did not follow through with the agreement.
They did follow through in the agreement.
> I am already expecting you to reply to this paragraph sentence-by-sentence, pulling them out of context. It so much harder for you to formulate an argument against a paragraph.
I already expect for you to whine and whine, and misquote the book which you did.
>No. That is not what I was saying because Ottomans did station their troops in their territories, making it de facto their territory.
Ottomans don't have to station troops in those territories to be a vassal, they agreed not to put any military presence. The deal included many other things which includes that Doroshenko will lend some troops in case of war
>What's your point?
That every Ottoman vassal had different agreement with the Ottoman Empire. Honestly it seems you don't know anything about how the Ottoman Empire organizes it's relationship with it's various subjects, you have shown how ignorant you are. Another example, Republic of Ragusa is a vassal that pays tribute, but doesn't military assistance (if you exempt their expertise in the Ottoman Navy), Crimean Khanate and the Cossack Hetmanate is opposite, they don't send tribute but they send military assistance. Principality of Transylvania, Wallachia and Moldavia send both.
>You haven't read the book.
I have read the book that is why I know you are misquoting.
>What a hypocritical request of you to make. Almost every quote you make is out of context. This conversation is very difficult to have.
It is very difficult to have because you don't know what you are talking about, where is the out of context quotes I have used, while I caught you doing
>This is YOUR OWN INTERPRETATION.
No it's not, in fact the book goes on and at page 143, at the beginging it follows the page 142 when the author talks about the agreement and mentions the "Important points in the berat include the broad of degree of autonomy granted" and then at the last part of the page, the last paragraph, it shows how the Ottoman intervened, because of Polish incursions.
>You didn't read the book
Yes I did
>and you don't know what the word "state" means.
Yes I know.
>The book talks about an independent Ukrainian state
Yes, that is what I said exactly, had the relationship between the Cossacks and Ottomans continued without no war with either Poland or Russia, an "independent Ukrainian state" might have come to fruition, if you continue reading the book you will see that Cossacks were dragged to wars with either Poland and Russia which means Ottoman intervention which equals to delayed "independent Ukrainian state". The author says "The lapse of active Ottoman involvement there meant that at this stage a more independent Ukrainian state would not come to be. For the Ottomans it eventually meant repeated direct confrontations with the Russian Empire"
It seems you didn't read the book at all.
>Please look it up, because you will be embarrassed that your statement above did not make any sense.
It made perfect sense, I just regurgitated what the author mentions.
>You have lost me with your pronouns. Who is "they" and "them"? Also, I would like some sources for this claim.
They is the Ottoman Empire and them is the Cossacks.
>Please give me a source that says they were called "Sanjak bey".
The book clearly mentions that the Cossack Hetmanate is a Sanjak, so what do you think the title is of the Sanjak? Use your brain.
>Again, you are adding your own spin.
No I didn't. Where is the spin
>You are still assuming that the Ottoman sultan decided, but the book says that the Hetmanate and the Ottoman Empire made a bilateral agreement that defined their relationship.
Yes and the Ottoman Sultan decided each term, in fact presents the terms of the agreement
> The sultan did not delegate the degree of autonomy.
Yes he did, page 142 "Important points in the berat include the broad of degree of autonomy granted"
>It WAS a military alliance.
Military Assistance is the correct word, Military Alliance implies that they help each other out but they are not vassal. They are indeed vassals, Ottomans as the protectorate o the Cossack Hetmamnate and the Cossacks as the subject of the Ottoman lend him military assistance to any campaign he deems fit.
>Israel receives protection from the United States. Do you call Israel a protectorate of the United States. No! Because this is a military alliance.
This is False analogy.
>Hetmanate remained independent
They were granted "broad degree of autonomy"
> The agreement with the Ottomans just added some military obligations to the Hetmanate. The Hetmanate was not a vassal.
It was indeed a vassal, it was also a Sanjak.
>You made this up in order to advance your narrative
No I didn't, the Ottoman Empire can grant autonomy to any vassal they want.
>It wasn't subservient to the Ottoman Empire.
Yes it was
>Please provide me with some specific decrees of the Ottoman Sultan (other than military cooperation, like the joint war against Poland-Lithuania, because this was a military alliance)
That was a Military assistance that is part of the obligation of the Ottoman vassals to provide in case of wars.
>from reliable sources that show that the Hetmanate was taking commands from the Ottomans
They agreed that they were being a vassal of the Ottoman Empire.
>That is based on your replies to myself and other users on this talk page.
I have participated in many talk pages, your pool of evidence is intentional biased, and again it is your subjective opinion that is not based on facts.
>Should I quote them for you directly?
You can do whatever you want.
>What is that supposed to mean? Perhaps you should read WP:Etiquette and WP:CIVIL, instead of keeping up with the insults. Clearly it looks like YOU haven't read these pages.
Clearly I have read the pages, I'm asking you one more time please stop spreading misinformation and misquoting and twisting my words.>"The best defense is a good offense" in your opinion, isn't it?
Actually I believe the best defense is a GOOD DEFENSE, that is just an opinion.
> When your arguments start running out, just attack the person you're arguing with.
When I call you out in your misquoting and twisting, I'm attacking how you presented the argument and telling you to stop walking up and twisting my words and misquoting the book.
>Ah, some more sarcasm and insults from Mr. Ivanov.
For you it is Sir Ivanov, so please don't call me Mr. Ivanov.
>Sounds like you have a lot of substance to your argument
You think so? Mr. Boguslav Alexis Ivanov (talk) 03:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Again, a lot of words but no substance. No source provided that Doroshenko was called "sanjak bey". Also no sources to say that the Hetmanate took any commands from the Ottoman Empire (apart from military cooperation). The agreement: "Doroshenko reportedly consented to these terms, with the exception that 1,000 janissaries be garrisoned only in Kodak." (Page 141) There WERE supposed to be troops stationed in Kodak based on both Doroshenko and the Ottomans' terms. Later, the book says that the Ottomans never did it: " Rather than occupying and defending the Cossack land of Doroshenko, the Ottomans directed their thrust further west against Kamianets’, the magnificent fortress that guarded some important routes into both Ukraine and Poland." (Page 145). So, they never carried through with their agreement: the Ottomans chose not to defend it and did not occupy it with their troops (as they agreed to do), even though it is true that they did call the Cossack Hetmanate a protectorate.--BoguSlav 22:12, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
>Again, a lot of words but no substance.
Again more excuses from someone who never read the book. You are getting lazy as usual. It's not my problem that you don't want to read and throw fake accusation HAHAHHAHAHAHAHA pathetic.
>No source provided that Doroshenko was called "sanjak bey".
I gave you a source saying he ruled a Sanjak.
>Also no sources to say that the Hetmanate took any commands from the Ottoman Empire (apart from military cooperation).
Which is the right of the overlords on the vassal to provide military assistance towards the Ottomans.
>The agreement: "Doroshenko reportedly consented to these terms, with the exception that 1,000 janissaries be garrisoned only in Kodak." (Page 141)
Those terms he consented where those agreed upon. He didn't consent to the 1,000 Janissaries therefore Ottoman and Doroshenko reached a mutual agreement. After these agreement, on June 1669 the Porte gave him the berat.
>There WERE supposed to be troops stationed in Kodak based on both Doroshenko and the Ottomans' terms
No the Ottomans were never supposed to be out troops in Kodak, they wanted, and Doroshenko didn't consent to those terms, the negotiations continued.
>Later, the book says that the Ottomans never did it: " Rather than occupying and defending the Cossack land of Doroshenko, the Ottomans directed their thrust further west against Kamianets’, the magnificent fortress that guarded some important routes into both Ukraine and Poland." (Page 145).
Yes because they agreed not to put troops in there and instead put troops in Podolia Eyalet
>So, they never carried through with their agreement: the Ottomans chose not to defend it and did not occupy it with their troops (as they agreed to do
They never agreed to occupy troops in Kodak.
>even though it is true that they did call the Cossack Hetmanate a protectorate
It was still a protectorate and a vassal. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 02:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
There are two options: you are a troll OR you can't read. Re-read this sentence slowly: "Doroshenko reportedly consented to these terms, with the exception that 1,000 janissaries be garrisoned only in Kodak." Again, no sources that Doroshenko was called "sanjak bey". No sources that show the Hetmanate following orders of the sultan (other than mutually agreed-upon military obligations).--BoguSlav 04:14, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone who has a copy of The European Tributary States of the Ottoman Empire in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries add the relevant information (complete with citations) to the sections of History that are relevant to the timescales. This should be done irrespective of whether one likes the point of view expressed in the book. It is surely better to have properly cited history, than not to.-- Toddy1 (talk) 23:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Of course, I'm looking to diversify my references and going back to the Harvard Ukrainian Studies to dig up some information from the Ottoman Archives that is going to shed light, there is different periods of Vassalage, I'm focusing on the 1655 correspondence between the Ottoman porte and the Cossacks. Before moving to the 1669 correspondence Alexis Ivanov (talk) 03:52, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Please remember that you can only use information from the Ottoman Archives for facts. You need to use secondary sources for interpretations.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Of course, of course, The Harvard Ukranian Studies will be the secondary source I'm using. I'm reading it and analyzing it. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 08:50, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
@Toddy1: Am I completely losing it, or am I imagining that it had already been cited properly in the article at some point and has gone missing? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
@Iryna Harpy: "Am I completely losing it" - no. It went missing from the infobox, but does not appear to have been in the article.
-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Facepalm Facepalm ... okay, I'm not mad, just a moron. I'll go back and salvage the refs ASAP. I also need to do a general ref clean-up before link rot sets in. On a final note, I have a couple of ideas as to how to fix the infobox so that info isn't replicated, plus stop the text being sandwiched so that it's painful to try and read. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

There are differences of view expressed in sources about the extent to which the Hetmanate was a protectorate. This needs to be brought out in the article text. Quotations such as the following, belong in the article text, not as footnotes to the infobox:

"So to what degree was Cossack Ukraine an Ottoman entity in this period? Since Islamic-style tribute (harac) was never imposed and scarcely discussed, technically speaking, we cannot call the hetmanate an Ottoman tributary. This is, of course, why we have preferred the term “vassal,” of course not in the original Western medieval sense, but in the sense of the relationship between a subject state and a suzerain, a state in which there are mutual obligations—mainly non-aggression and protection of the subject by the suzerain in exchange for, when needed, military service by the subject on behalf of the suzerain, and possibly rendering tribute."

-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Toddy I will tell you this sincerly, Mr.BoguSlav doesn't know what he is talking about, now hear me out before you reach any conclusions. First of all the book is titled "The European Tributary States of the Ottoman Empire in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries", it is an anthology book meaning every chapter is written by multiple people with different expertise in Ottoman relations with their tributary. One man is focusing on Cossack, another is focusing on Crimea, another on Moldavia and so on. On the publisher's page it says "The European Tributary States of the Ottoman Empire is the first comprehensive overview of the empire’s relationship to its various European tributaries, Moldavia, Wallachia, Transylvania, Ragusa, the Crimean Khanate and the Cossack Hetmanate. " the word tributary hear simple means "The term tributary state refers to one of the two main ways in which a pre-modern state might be subordinate to a more powerful state", in a sense a vassal, but a detailed meaning of the world is to pay a tribute, and the Crimean Khanate and the Cossack Hetmanate never payed tribute, and the book makes it clear at that. Page 49 says "There is no evidence of any taxes from the Khanate being paid into the Ottoman treasury. The tribute paid by Muscovy and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth to the Crimea constituted an important part of khan's income." Moscow and Poland are both not a tributary of Crimean Khanate yet they pay a tribute or as Russian and Polish folks call it "gifts" to be less-humiliating. You see the author clears up the defintion that they don't pay a tribute but they are still a vassal and not paying a tribute doesn't mean you are not a vassal, and the word tributary used in the book's title means a vassal in it's old fashion sense. The book has two chapters dedicated to two vassals that never payed tribute yet called them that in the title which is wrong but understandable both are the Crimean Khanate and the Cossack Hetmanate. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 09:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Yet the author only uses the word "vassal" in quotation marks. For the sake of accuracy, the term "vassal" should also be included in quotation marks as the author says it in the book. Otherwise, you are oversimplifying the information in the book and adding your own interpretation. For this reason, my revision to infobox was correct.--BoguSlav 05:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of foreign relations section

@Alexis Ivanov:, was there a reason for your deletion of the section on foreign relations? Or was it an accident?-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:56, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

@Toddy1: accident returned information I deleted and returned information he deleted. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 08:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:18, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
I think this was no accident. It was fairly obvious based on the huge loss of information in his edit, that he was aware that he was deleting more than just the information in the infobox.--BoguSlav 05:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
It was an accident, or else I wouldn't restore it. You can think however you want. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 05:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cossack_Hetmanate/Archive_2&oldid=1267528793"