Role of Hajduks and Cossacks in the 16th and 17th century Hungarian and Ukrainian society

Анотація

cossack and haiduk social hierarchy

Б. Варга, д-р іст. наук, доц. Сегедський університет, Сегед, Угорщина

РОЛЬ ГАЙДУКІВ ТА КОЗАКІВ В УГОРСЬКОМУ ТА УКРАЇНСЬКОМУ СУСПІЛЬСТВАХ В XVI-XVII СТОЛІТТЯХ

Представлено можливі міркування для порівняльного аналізу гайдуків Угорщини та козаків України. Екзистенційні можливості обох груп зумовлені владним вакуумом, що виник у другій половині XV ст. в прикордонних районах, а на кінець XVI ст. вони стали визначним оборонним елементом. Основним мотивуючим фактором для розвитку гайдуків і козаків, а також збільшення їхньої чисельності була турецька загроза. Як гайдуки, так і козаки своєю метою вважали військову службу, за рахунок неї мали намір просуватися матеріально та в суспільстві. Стосовно свого становища у суспільстві, то королівське гайдуцтво мало багато спільного з українським реєстровим козацтвом, відчуття згуртованості та розвинене суспільне мислення надавали можливість забезпечувати собі важливе місце у суспільній ієрархії держави. Вони були проміжною категорією суспільства, але тільки на кінець XVI ст. стали масовим соціальним явищем. Їхню соціальну відокремленість, в першу чергу виправдовувала важлива роль у захисті південних прикордонних територій країни. Центральна влада в обох країнах однаково ставилися до козаків і гайдуків, вбачаючи у них потрібну військову силу, але політика уряду щодо козаків і гайдуків фактично змінювалась залежно від актуальної політики держави. Такі ж приклади мають вражаючу подібність в інституціях реєстрових козаків та королівських гайдуків, які були визнані коронною владою і посіли привілейоване місце в суспільстві, але скільки вони не намагались - так і не змогли підняти свій ранг до дворянства.

Ключові слова: угорські гайдуки, українські козаки, історичні паралелі, проміжна соціальна категорія, Королівство Угорщина, Трансільванське князівство, Річ Посполита.

The main text

Hungarian historians [7, p. 16-21; 11, p. 153-180; 17, p. 193; 18, p. 22; 20, p. 42; 24, p. 38; 25, p. 16-19; 31, p. 31-47; 36, p. 174-180] repeatedly voiced special concern for the fact that, similarly to the Hajduks, bonnet- laird communities fulfilling military service were formed in the Polish-Lithuanian state, too, known as the Cossacks, who took up arms against either internal feudal oppression or external enemies, primarily the Turks [25, p. 196]. The Cossacks of Ukraine, as a new social and political factor, had evolved in the second half of the 15^th century [16, p. 191; 26, p. 108-109; 38, p. 251; 43, p. 303; 44, p. 183; 45, p. 20; 46, p. 33; 48, p. 19; 56, p. 36; 57, p. 178-179], which period coincides with the emergence of the Hungarian Hajduks. It unequivocally turns out from previous sources that Hajduks in large numbers had already been members of Gyцrgy Dцzsa's army in 1514.Social identification of Cossacks can be considered as a heterogeneous composition, as in addition to runaway villeins settled at the southern border of the Polish- Lithuanian state, the so-called "no-man's-land", impoverished city-dwellers and outcast gentry were present in their ranks, who recognised the king of Poland as their only lord. Hungarian historiography has still not reached a unanimous consent regarding the exact proportion of various social strata constituting the ranks of Hajduks [18, p. 19; 25, p. 23-24]. However, comparing the origins of Hajduks and Cossacks doing military service, it can be stated that they can by no means be considered as a homogeneous formation in society, yet from the beginning they came into being as a differentiated social category. Moreover, although they had been able to gain members from diverse social classes, the majority of them were still villeins.

Initially, Hajduks did not form a separate social category as a detached body. It was only at the end of the 15^th century that they began to take shape [8, p. 7], and after 1526 they were obviously considered as not only raiding troops, but armed groups who, yet disorganised at the time, principally fought to protect their home country [6, p. 25], and from 1552 onwards they already established an independent military group which aimed to conduct systematic struggle against the Turks to replace occasional raids [2, p. 106].

In the meantime, Polish monarchs, similarly to Hungarian authorities, attempted to hold the restless Cossacks off by issuing a series of threatening decrees [35, p. 4, 12, 28, 33, 44, 84, 130, 190, 200, 253], yet with little success, since they mostly did not possess the necessary power to have the decrees enforced. The denomination of Cossack at the time was used for groups difficult to control and living on the southern border of the Polish-Lithuanian state. Non-privileged Cossacks resettled to the waterfalls of the Dnieper ("za porogi") [15, p. 70-71], which area, due to its excellent geographical features, with its thick forests, swamps and islands, offered sound protection as a natural boundary against intrusions by Turks or Tartars. Also, their "combat state", the Zaporozhian Sich was "established" here in the 1540's. Also, these people had built up a social and political organisation of military nature in the Zaporozhian Sich independent from the Polish-Lithuanian administration, and eventually effectively integrated into the protection of the southern borders.

It was only after the second half of the 1590's that the Hajduks developed to become a genuine military factor, which was due to the fact that the Fifteen Years' War resulted in an increase in their numbers and importance. Following this, Stephen Bocskai compressed part of the Hajduks into such organised troops that were acknowledged countrywide as independent and privileged corps [9, p.317; 22, p. 333; 23, p. 11], since the 1608 assembly of Bratislava ratified Bocskai's decrees [30, p. 15] by enacting the points of the Treaty of Vienna. Half of the estimated 30,000 Hajduks living in Trans-Tisza and the Partium were relocated, thus eventually Hajduk soldiers became integrated into the anti-Ottoman defense line. Nevertheless, while the privileges of the seven Hajduk cities in Szabolcs (Nвnвs, Bфszфrmйny, Szoboszlц, Vamospйrcs, Polgar, Hadhaz, Dorog) county were solidified by 1632 [10, p. 317] for good, the "Little Hajdu cities" [21, p. 248-248] of Bihar country came under county authority and tax obligations were imposed on them from 1634 onwards.

The Polish influence on pre-1648 Ukrainian nobility had born its stamp on it, as by the turn of the 16^th and 17^th centuries only few Ukrainian noblemen remained who had been unaffected by the Polonisation process. This caused Ukrainians to "lose" the majority of their political and social elite, therefore Cossacks took over to "lead" and represent the interests of the Ukrainian society. In 1572, Sigismund II Augustus of the Polish-Lithuanian state succeeeded in passing the introduction of Cossacks as an institution registered in the Sejm [16, p. 196; 57, p. 263; 42, p. 81; 33, p. 176; 39, p. 185]. As the King of Poland, between 1576 and 1586 Stephen Bathory experimented with several methods to regulate unregistered "free" Cossacks, using intimidation [1, p. 32; 3, p. 69] and executions to restrain Cossacks. Also, he hired some of them for serving the state. Although 300 "free" Cossacks had already sworn to be loyal to the last Jagiellonian monarch previously, in fact it was Stephen Bathory who, in accordance with his statute of September 1578 titled "Agreement with Sich Cossacks" [1, p. 337] created the institute of registered Cossacks. This act of Bathory's basically meant providing to initially 500, then in 1583 to 600 state-registered Cossacks [51, p. 92-93] tax exemption, exemption from church and landlord taxes. In addition, they gained independence from the scope of authority of local Polish authorities, which is they acquired the right to act as a local government [56, p. 9]. However, formally the Polish- Lithuanian government acknowledged privileges of only registered Cossacks in state service [41, p. 57-64] and officially Sich Cossacks were regarded to be outlaws. Still, despite this, the Zaporozhian Sich actually functioned as a "state within the state" in the framework of the Rzeczpospolita. The central power reluctantly tolerated its existence due to its determining role in defending the borders; however, no official recognition came along. Eventually, registered Cossacks fulfilled the hopes placed in them by the Polish monarch; moreover, they actively participated in the Livonian war against Russia, along Stephen Bathory [4, p. 102-103; 27, p. 73-74]. The concept of registered Cossacks as such practically legalized the opportunity to escape from the dependence on landlords, and endowed registered Cossacks significant privileges [57, p. 263]; nevertheless, in fact they were merely treated as supporting troops in the military system of the Polish-Lithuanian state [16, p. 196]. It was this being pushed to the background in the first place that resulted that they had begun to serve outlandish monarchs as mercenaries. The Fifteen Years' War was the first occasion when the Habsburgs employed the Cossacks as mercenaries, moreover, later several times they were hired for military services, eg. during the Thirty Years' War.

Therefore, the major problem posed to the Polish administration in handling the Cossack-issue was that it had been unable to hire for state service all Cossacks desiring to get registered, for this endeavour had been hindered by either the lack of financial resources or the hostile attitude of Polish nobility towards Cossacks. The Polish Szlachta had a good reason to hamper the growth of registered Cossacks. On the one hand, they were afraid to lose their labour supply if too many of the villeins attempted to make it to the ranks of the privileged registered Cossacks, and, on the other hand, they recognised that a ready and sizeable army built on Cossacks in the hands of the "elected" Polish monarchs may very well be dangerous to their own privileges, too. By all accounts, Stephen Bathory played a decisive role in the history of relations between Hajduks and Cossacks, as he, the ruler of Transylvania [19, p. 18], and then king of Poland [27, p. 73; 54, p. 72] was the first to realise the real combat value of Ukrainian Cossacks. As monarch of the Rzeczpospolita, from 1576 onwards Bathory had both Hajduks [28, p. 93-108; 29, p. 2] and Cossacks [52, p. 77-78] figthing in his army, which was a rare occasion since normally in most of the armed conflicts these two groups fought each other as enemies.

A significant change in the position of Cossacks took place as a result of the Kurukovo Agreement of 1625 [35, p. 284-292], signed between the Polish government and the state Cossacks. As its consequence, Cossacks emerged as an organised military formation, and thus registered Cossacks became a public institute that provided them with a livelihood including a combination of legally obtained takings and military pay. The officially registered six regiments of Cossacks were allowed to apply privileges separately supported to them by the monarchs of Poland. At the same time, the Agreement of Kurukovo plunged the Rzeczpospolita into an inevitable social disaster, for the gradual expansion of registered Cossacks did not even alleviate, but instead further increased social tensions [11, p. 158].

By the 1630's, the registered Cossacks had become a regular army with an ever-increasing involvement in politics, all this in spite of the fact that apart from the "noble uprising", only supporting troops were trained within the military of the Polish state. This marginalization also explains that more and more of them began to sympathyze with the revolts of free Cossacks, which ultimately meant that part of the registered Cossacks' joining the 1637 Cossack uprising in fact served as a pretext for the Szejm, controlled by Polish nobility, to issue a decree of 1638 named "Ordination of the Zaporozhian Cossack Army" [37(1), p. 255-256]. According to this, Cossacks as a whole had lost all their previously obtained rights and privileges, and henceforward became equal with villeins. Even though the number of registered ones still remained to be 6.000, they were not allowed to have their own, elected leaders, but instead they were put under the direct authority of a supervisor (commissar) of Polish origin, appointed by the monarch. Under the Ordination, from then on Cossacks differed from villeins in that they owed not agricultural, but military service to the Polish-Lithuanian state. Thus, owing to the reforms of 1638, registered Cossacks lost their personal alliance character based on extensive self-government, and transformed into state- controlled and organised complex military unit furnished with an insitutionalised leadership.

Up until the middle of the 17^th century, Cossacks could not be regarded as a sovereign social class, but only an "intermediate" category, as the population of Ukraine was characterized by a relatively amorph social system at the time. The population of Ukraine is called a "society set for self-defense" [14, p. 61-63] in the literature of history, moreover, Cossacks are evaluated as a phenomenon connected and conditioned to, and intertwined with the economical and social development of the Ukrainian border area. The "great revolution" [53, p. 81] of 1648-1654, led by Bohdan Khmelnytsky brought significant changes and transformation in the composition of social stratification in Ukraine. The crucial change was apparent in the act of the Cossack elite (starshina) seizing governance, and in the Hetmanate society within the Russian bond a relatively free opportunity of moving up in society emerged. As a consequence, villeins were allowed to become common Cossacks by undertaking military service, while the latter could rise to cement themselves in "Cossack aristocracy". Following the outbreak of the Khmelnytsky movement, the Polish and pro-Polish Ukrainian szlachta fled the so-called "Cossack Ukraine" leaving their lands behind. The chief achievement of the movement was the 1649 Treaty of Zboriv, which stated that the Polish government declared "Cossack-Ukraine" containing the voivodes of Kiev, Bratslav and Chernihiv to be an autonomy. A Tsichirin- based Hetmanate administrative organisation vested with self-government was built up as a result, headed by Bohdan Khmelnytsky [37(II), p. 299-306]. Then, in the age of Hetmanate (1654-1764), after the union with Russia the Cossack elite and common Cossacks started to become distinct from each other. While the starshina assumed control of Ukraine, accumulating offices and lands, at the same time common Cossacks became gradually impoverished and tried to avoid the more and more costly military conscription. Due to the Khmelnytsky movement, the Hetmanate presented the image of a "simplified society" as two of its major elements were provided by Cossacks and "non-Cossacks", between whom no sharp borderline existed. Since the previous meaning of nobility disappeared, they did not possess economical and political privileges over other social strata. During the time of the Bogdan Khmelnytsky movement, the existence of nobility as a distinct economical and political controlling class was definitely questioned, and thus stratification of orders gradually vanished within the networks of society. Also, the Polish type of Ukrainian szlachta assimilated into the ranks of Cossacks, therefore nobility as a privileged group of society basically disappeared from Ukraine.

However, in the second half of the 17^th century, the so- called "social regression" could be observed in Ukraine, for the Cossack elite firmly voiced its demands to officially adjust to a noble way of life. This endeavour again appreciated the noble title within Ukrainian society. However, we must note here that for the majority of the Cossack starshina the political structure of the Polish "noble republic" was considered to be an ideal type of state until the 1780's, and penetrating the ranks of the privileged shlachta seemed definitely more appealing than obtaining a Russian noble title.

In the official position of the Tsarist Government, no formal nobility existed in the territory of the Hetmanate [50, p. 340-356], so high-ranking Cossack officials, more or less emerging from the ranks of common Cossacks progressively obtained noble rights, as they owned lands, were exempt from payment of taxes and all other payment obligations to the state. By the end of the 17^th century, members of the Cossack starshina turned into genuine landlords, yet they could not call themselves either shlachta or dvorjan [49, p. 465]. By the 1720's and 1730's the Cossack elite became entirely detached, and presented the image of a privileged social class even based on the lands they owned and the relations they had with their villeins. Still, the Tsarist government recognised Cossack as nobles only if they 1) were awarded nobility from the Tsar 2) performed services in either the permanent Tsarist army 3) or performed a state service in offices that go with an inheritable noble title. Ukrainian "aristocracy", however, considered itself to be a genuine and legal nobility (=shlachta) despite the fact that most of them did not possess any documents certifying nobility whatsoever. All they could claim was the very fact that as members of the government apparatus in the Hetmanate they gained a privileged position and in practice owned noble privileges.

From 1762 onwards, the fate of the Ukranian elite was in the hands of Catherine II, who from the very beginning found it difficult to tolerate the privileged status of the Zaporozhian Army and the Ukrainian elite within the empire. In 1764, the Empress terminated the Hetmanate and introduced by regulation the Russian administration in the Eastern Ukraine [33, p. 173-176]. The rapid and successful integration of Ukrainian territories primarily depended on the cooperation of the Cossack starshina, so on account of Catherine II's Charter of Nobility in 1785 [50, p. 238-266] the Ukrainian elite was conferred on nobility and self-governance. However, a difficulty arose as privileges still applied to members of the stashina who were able to prove their right to the noble title by presenting authentic and valid deed of gift from the Tsar or the King of Poland [47, p. 1-2]. For this reason, the Ukrainian elite excluded from privileges launched an ideological struggle for the full recognition of Ukrainian ranks. Their topmost success turned out to be the Tsar's decree in 1835, in which the Tsar's government automatically recognised all military and civil Ukrainian ranks, and regarded them as hereditary ones within the Russian Empire.

Summary. After comparing the position of Ukrainian Cossacks and Hungarian Hajduks in society, it can be stated that they constituted an "intermediate" category between nobility and villeins, and they became a mass phenomenon in society only at the end of the 16^th century. Initially, denominations of Hajduks and Cossacks were both applied to not an exact ethnic minority, but for the designation of a specific profession and lifestyle, moreover, considering their position, they established themselves as formations differentiated and heterogeneous at the same time. During the period spanning the end of the 15^th century and the 1570's, Cossacks, similarly to Hajduks, began to take shape as a new social phenomenon, yet legally they still did not exist. On the analogy of contemporary Hajduks' social status, being a Cossack had not yet been accompanied by any advantages whatsoever, be it either rights or privileges, instead, it was considered as a special occupation, not a distinct social category.

Registered Cossacks and royal Hajduks as such were legally recognised, thus they gained a distinguished position in contemporary society despite the fact that hard as they tried, and the title of nobility was yet unavailable to them. Finally, Cossacks managed to reach higher levels of organisation and self-determination within the Russian coexistence after 1654, which they succeeded in preserving for a longer period with the ongoing Turkish threat.

Occurences analogous with the privilegedness of Hajduks could be observed in the history of Cossacks living under Polish authority, too, yet on account of the 16th and 17th century internal and foreign policies of the Rzeczpospolita these led to outcomes of different quality. Solution to the Hajduk question causing social tension was more or less successfully achieved, however, disorder in the situation of Ukraine's Cossacks resulted in intensified social conflicts. The greatest failure of the Polish- Lithuanian administration's Cossack-policy was expressed in the exclusion of Cossacks from the "noble nation" [13, p. 383]. Back in the Polish-Lithuanian period, Cossacks found themselves in between nobility and villeins at the social ladder. Owing military service to the state, they were free as individuals, but they were not allowed to hold villeins, thus their appreciation in society was practically dependent on the contemporary political situation. From 1648, nonetheless, Cossacks started to possess a decisive influence in the control of Ukraine, and therefore replaced their "intermediate" social category by elevating to occupy separate social strata.

While Hajduks were effectively integrated into the antiOttoman defense system in the 16th and 17th centuries, non-registered Cossacks "voluntarily" undertook to protect the Southern borders, at the same time, for both cases we can declare that the societies of these regions had become basically militarised. [5, p. 121].

Список використаних джерел

1. Acta historica res gestas Poloniae illustrantia ab anno 1507 usque ad annum 1795: Sprawy wojenne krola Stefana Batorego. T. 11 / Zebral i wydal Ignacy Polkowski. Krakow: X. Ignacy Polkowski, 1887. 485 p.

2. Acsady, I. Magyarorszagi Budavar visszafoglalasa koraban / Acsady. Budapest: Mйhner V., 1886. 334 p.

3. Bathory Istvan erdйlyi fejedelem йs lengyel kiraly levelezйse, II. 1576-1586 / red. Veress E. Kolozsvar: Grof Teleki Pal Tudomanyos Intйzet,1944. 386 p.

4. Besala, J. Stefan Batory / J. Besala. Warszawa: PIW, 1992. 550 p.

5. Czigany, I. Hajdьtelepttйsek йs a militarizalt tarsadalom megerosфdйse a Tiszantьlon a 17. szazad elso felйben / I. Czigany // Studia Caroliensa. 2006. Pp. 105-124.

6. Csaszar, E. A hajdьsag kialakulasa йs fejlodйse / E. Csaszar // Studium. Debrecen, 1935. 68 p.

7. Danko, I. A hajdьsag eredete / I. Danko // A hajdьk a magyar tфrtйnelemben. 1969. 10. Pp. 3-12.

8. Dudas, Gy. A szabad hajdьk tфrtйnete a XVI. йs XVII. szazadban / Gy. Dudas. Szeged: Engel Adolf, 1887. 115 p.

9. Erdйlyi Orszaggyulйsi Emlйkek. (EOE) - Monumenta Hungariae Historica - Magyar Tфrtйnelmi Emlйkek VI. (1608-1614) / red. Szilagyi S. Buda-Pest: Magyar Tudomanyos Akadйmia, 1880. 560 p.

10. Erdйlyi Orszaggyulйsi Emlйkek. (EOE) - Monumenta Hungariae Historica- Magyar Tфrtйnelmi Emlйkek VIII. (1629-1658) / red. Szilagyi S. Buda-Pest: Magyar Tudomanyos Akadйmia,1882. 485 p.

11. Gebei, S. Hajdь kivaltsagolas - kozak kivaltsagolas / S. Gebei // red. K. Papp - A. Jeney-Toth. Frigy йs bйkessйg legyen..." - A bйcsi йs a zsitvatoroki bйke. Debrecen: Debreceni Egyetem Tфrtйneti Intйzet - Hajdь-Bihar - Megyei Цnkormanyzat, Debrecen, 2006. Pp. 153-180.

12. Gebei, S. Bethlen Gabor viszonya a Rzeczpospolitahoz /

13. S. Gebei // Bethlen Gabor kйpmasa / red. K. Papp. Debrecen: Speculum Historiae Debreceniense, 2013. Pp. 93-116.

14. Kopys, T. A hajdь- йs a kozak kйrdйs a 16-17. szazadi lengyel nemesi kфztarsasagban йs Magyarorszagon / T. Kopys // red. K. Papp - A. Jeney-Toth - A. Ulrich - Bathory Gabor йs kora. Debrecen: Debreceni Egyetem Tфrtйnelmi Intйzet - Erdйly-tфrtйneti Alapitvany, 2009. Pp. 375-383.

15. Kumke, C. Fьhrer und Gefьhrte bei den Zaporoger Kosaken Wiesbaden. Struktur und Geschichte kosakischer Verbдnde im polnischlitauischen Grenzland (1550-1648) / C. Kumke. Berlin, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1993. 551 p.

16. Le Vasseur, G. A Description of Ukraine (1660) / G. Le Vasseur. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1991. 356 p.

17. Magocsi P.-R. A History of Ukraine - The Land and Its Peoples / P.R. Magocsi. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2010. 896 p.

18. Nagy, L. Magyar hadsereg йs hadmuvйszet a harmincйves haborьban / L. Nagy. Budapest: Akadйmiai Kiado, 1972. 220 p.

19. Nagy, L. A hajdьvitйzek / L. Nagy. Budapest: Kossuth Kiado, 1986. 320 p.

20. Nagy, L., Nyakas, M. Hajdьtisztessйg tьkфre / L. Nagy, M. Nyakas. Hajdьbфszфrmйny: Hajdьsagi Mьzeum, 2001. 339 p.

21. Nyakas, M. A bihari kishajdь varosok tфrtйnete / M. Nyakas. Debrecen: A Hajdь-Bihar Megyei Цnkormanyzat Hajьd-Bihar Megyei Mьzeumok Igazgatosaga Kiadvanya, 2005. 369 p.

22. Nyakas, M. Bocskai szabadsagharcanak kezdetei йs a bihari varak / M. Nyakas // Magyarorszag vйdelme- Europa vйdelme. Eger: Studia Agriensa 24. 2006. Pp. 247-264.

23. Nyakas, M. A masodik hajdьfelkelйs (1607-1608) / M. Nyakas // red. K. Papp - A. Jeney-Toth - A. Ulrich - Bathory Gabor йs kora. Debrecen: Debreceni Egyetem Tфrtйnelmi Intйzet - Erdйly-tфrtйneti Alapitvany, 2009. Pp. 327-336.

24. Nyakas, M. Nagy Andras Hajdьgeneralis / M. Nyakas. Biharnagybajom: Hajdь-Bihar megyei Цnkormanyzat, 2012. 26 p.

25. Perjйs, G. A hajdьkutatas jelentosйge / G. Perjйs // A hajdьk a magyar tфrtйnelemben. Debrecen: Hajdь-Bihar Megyei Mьzeumok Kфzlemйnyei. 1966. 10. Pp. 38-46.

26. Racz, I. A hajdьk a xViI. szazadban / I. Racz. Debrecen: KLTE, 1969. 240 p.

27. Subtelny, O. Ukraine - A History / O. Subtelny. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2000. 736 p.

28. Szabo, B. Bathory Istvan erdйlyi fejedelem йs lengyel kiraly katonai йs katonapolitikai tevйkenysйge / B. Szabo. PhD-йrtekezйs, Budapest: 2009. 161 p.

29. Szabo, B. Bathory Istvan erdйlyi fejedelem йs lengyel kiraly magyar katonai / B. Szabo // red. Szabo S. Фrфkфs haborь kйt vilag hataran: Katonak, fegyverek йs hadviselйs a tфrфkфk elleni kьzdelemben. Nyirbator: Bathori Istvan Mьzeum, 2011. Pp. 93-108.

30. Szadeczky-Kardoss, L. Bathory Istvan lengyel kiraly magyar katonai az 1580-iki muszka haborьban / L. Szadeczky-Kardoss // Hadtфrtйnelmi Kфzlemйnyek. 1931. XXXII. йvf. I-II. Pp. 1-30.

31. Szendrey, I. Hajdьszabadsaglevelek / I. Szendrey. Debrecen: Alfфldi Nyomda, 1971. 335 p.

32. Varga, B. A magyarorszagi hajdьsag йs az ukrajnai kozaksag tфrtйneti parhuzamai / B. Varga // Acta Historica. 2005. CXX. Pp. 31-47.

33. Акты, относящиеся к истории Юго-Западной России (15991637) Т. 2. Санкт-Петербург: Тип. В.В. Пратц, 1865. 301 с.

34. Акты, относящиеся к истории Юго-Западной России (16651668) T. 6. Санкт-Петербург: Тип. В.В. Пратц, 1869. 279 с.

35. Антонович В. Про козацькі часи на Україні / В. Антонович. Київ: Дніпро, 1991. 238 с.

36. Архив Юго-Западной России, издаваемый временной комиссией для разбора древних актов. Ч. 3, Т. 1: Акты о козаках (15001648). Киев: Унив. тип., 1863. 433 с.

37. Варга Б. Історичні паралелі гайдуків Угорщини та козаків України за період XVI-XVII століть / Б. Варга // Четвертий Міжнародний Конгрес Україністів. Історія. Ч. 1. Одеса, 1999. С. 174-180.

38. Воссоединение Украины с Россией. Документы и материалы в трёх томах. Т. 1-3. Москва: АН СССР, 1954. 588 с., 558 с., 646 с.

39. Голобуцкий В.А. Запорожское козачество / В.А. Голобуцкий. Киев: Госполитиздат УССР, 1957. 461 с.

40. Грушевский М.С. История украинского казачества до соединения с Московским государством. Т. 1 / М.С. Грушевский. Киев: Типография 1-й Кіевской Артели Печ. Дела. Трехсвятительская 5, 1913. 408 с.

41. Гурбик А.О. Виникнення Запорозької Січі (хронологічний та територіальний аспекти проблеми) / А.О. Гурбик // Український Історичний Журнал. 1999. №6. С. 3-17.

42. Жерела до історії України-Руси - Матеріали до історії української козаччини. Том 8 / під ред. М. Грушевського. Львів, 1908. 485 с.

43. Каманин И.М. К вопросу о козачестве до Богдана Хмельницкого / И.М. Каманин. Киев: Тип. Г.Т. Корчак-Новицкаго, 1894. 94 с.

44. Костомаров Н.И. Богдан Хмельницкий. Историческая монография / Н.И. Костомаров. Санкт-Петербург: Тип. М.М. Стасюлевича, 1884. 378 с.

45. Кулиш П.А. Отпадение Малороссии от Польши. Т. 1 / П.А. Кулиш. Москва: Унив. тип., 1888. 282 с.

46. Летопись Григория Грабянки / Киев: Унив. тип. 1854. 445 с.

47. Летопись Самовидца по новооткрытым спискам. Киев: Тип. К.Н. Милевского, 1878. 584 с.

48. Миллер Д. Очерки из истории и юридического быта старой Малороссии: превращение козацкой старшины в дворянство / Д. Миллер. Киев: Тип. Императ. Ун-та Св. Владимира Н.Т. Корчак- Новицкого, 1897. 133 с.

49. Осипов К. Богдан Хмельницкий / К. Осипов. Москва: Молодая гвардия, 1948. 480 с.

50. Путро А.И. Левобережная Украина в составе Российского государства во второй половине XVIII века / А.И. Путро. Киев: Головное издательство издательского объединения "Выща школа", 1988. 142 с.

51. Сборник Императорского Русского исторического Общества. Т. 7 / Санкт-Петербург:ИРИО, 1871. 417 с.

52. Сборник летописей, относящихся к истории Южной и Западной России / Ред. Д. Антонович. Киев: Тип. Г.Т. Корчак-Новицкого, 1888. 322 с.

53. Сили Ш. Венгерские воины на службе московскому государству в конце XVI и XVII вв. / Ш. Сили // Вестник Волгоградского Государственного Университета. 2003. 8. С. 77-81.

54. Смолій В., Степанков В. Українська державна ідея XVII- XVIII століть: проблеми формування, еволюції, реалізації / В. Смолій, В. Степанков. Київ: Альтернативи, 1997. 368 с.

55. Стороженко А.В. Стефан Баторий и днепровские козаки / В. Стороженко. Киев: Типография Г.Л. Фронцкевича,1904. 327 с.

56. Щербак В.О. Українське козацтво: формування соціального стану: друга половина XV - середина XVII ст. / В.О. Щербак. Київ: КМ Academia, 2000. 300 с.

57. Щербак В.О. Запровадження козацьких реєстрів /

58. О. Щербак // Магістеріум. 2010. 41. С. 6-11.

59. Яковенко Н. Нарис історії середньовічної та ранньомодерної України / Н. Яковенко. Київ: Критика, 2009. 380 с.

Размещено на Allbest.ru