Through the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, Russian captives played a significant role in Ottoman social life, in fact becoming 0ttoman through processes of conversion which scholars have begun to examine. But over the course of the eighteenth century, Russo-Ottoman treaties increasingly required the return of Russian subjects to Russia. This paper traces the implementation of these treaty terms, focusing on how "Russianness" was defined and constrained, and on the strikingly modern lines of legal sovereignty which resulted. I begin in the 1740s, arguing that the abolition of ransom led the two states to emphasize captives' political identity rather than their economic value. Moving on through the remainder of the century, I trace the shifting boundaries of which slaves were, and were not, eligible for Rssian state aid. This was not, however, simply a matter of a victorious Russia dictating terms to the prostrate Ottomans; in fact, I show, Russian pretensions on non-Russian subjects, especially Georgian, were turned back by Ottoman resistance. In the end, I argue, the lines of sovereignty were drawn in dialogue between the two empires’ interests and ideologies. The anti-climactic result of this process was found in the early nineteenth-century Serbian and Greek revolts, in which Russia protested Ottoman conduct, but made no attempt to secure the release of those Ottoman subjects enslaved as a result of these conflicts--suggesting the enduring power of eighteenth-century definitions of sovereignty. The paper, then, provides a prehistory of nineteenth century foreign diplomats' efforts to abolish the Ottoman slave trade, illustrating the very different realities of the eighteenth century while also demonstrating that strikingly modern concempts of international law could arose in the Ottoman-Russian milieu.

Ottoman Treatment of the French Prisoners during the War of Second Coalition (1798-1802) The War of Second Coalition saw many novelties in traditional Ottoman practices such as entering a coalition with the traditional foe –Russia- against the tradition friend –France and opening the Straits to Russian warships for the first time in history. Ottoman treatment of French POW in this war has widely been condemned by the contemporaries including the Russian ally. Poqueville who fell captive to the Ottomans was also very influential in the shaping of negative views about the treatment of the POWs. Nevertheless, no study has ever been conducted on this subject based on the Ottoman archives. This presentation aims to (1) analyze the treatment of French POWs during the War of the Second Coalition by the Ottomans with reference to the Ottoman archives (2) show the changing nature of Ottoman attitudes so as to follow the European patterns of war (3) contextualize the subject within the broader issue of Ottoman efforts of gaining legitimacy in the eyes of the friends and foes. This presentation contends that while accusations about the Ottoman ill-treatment of the French POWs was not totally unfounded, ongoing rivalry between the two allies –Russia and the Ottoman Empire- and the popular theme of ‘oriental despotism’ were more important in the emergence of this misperception.

Imperial Confrontation or Regional Cooperation?: Re-conceptualizing Ottoman-Russian Relations in the Black Sea Region, 1768-1830s The Black Sea region from 1768-1830s has traditionally been characterized as a theater of warfare and imperial competition. Indeed, during this period, the Russian and Ottoman Empires engaged in four armed conflicts for supremacy in the Balkans, the Caucasus, and on the Black Sea itself. Based upon research conducted in Ottoman, Bulgarian, Russian, and Ukrainian archives, my paper will seek to balance the historiography of Russian and Ottoman relations in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. While not discounting geo-strategic or ideological confrontation between the Ottoman and Russian Empires, my paper will emphasize the considerable amount of exchange – of trade, populations, and disease – that took place between these two empires. It will contend that despite repeatedly engaging in military conflict for control over the Black Sea region in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, the Ottoman and Russian states communicated about and coordinated their response to surges in population movements across their mutual Black Sea frontier. Building upon a case study of Bulgarian population movements between the Russian and Ottoman Empires my paper will specifically address: the “transnational” character of Ottoman-Russian relations in the Black Sea region in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries; Ottoman migration and refugee re-settlement initiatives in Rumelia in the early part of the nineteenth century; the impact of imperial competition on the Ottoman state’s adoption of pro-migrant policies to retain and attract reaya populations in Rumelia; the Ottoman state’s evolving conceptualization of subjecthood and “citizenship” in the first part of the nineteenth century; the codification in the Treaty of Bucharest (1812) and Treaty of Adrianople (1829) of ad-hoc agreements concluded by provincial-level Ottoman and Russian state servitors; the extension of the principal of reciprocity to all types of migrants and refugees moving between the Ottoman and Russian Empires as in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries; and the question of whether and to what extent Ottoman and Russian state servitors drew upon a common set of ideas and experiences when developing and implementing administrative, economic, military, and political reforms in their respective empires.

This paper examines Russian and Ottoman policies towards cross-border mobility. Traditionally, this has been a subject that has been viewed primarily in terms of (either Russian or Ottoman) state hostility against one group or another. While this form of state hostility indeed constitutes an important part of this story, the approaches of the tsarist and Ottoman states towards the issue of human mobility were also a lot more complicated than this narrative would imply. While tsarist officials, for example, indeed expelled Muslims from some areas of Russia in times of war, in most cases they sought to prevent Muslim emigration. Meanwhile, both tsarist and Ottoman officials made decisions regarding which populations that sought to attract, and which they desired to expel. Drawn from a variety of sources from both the Ottoman archives and Russian imperial archives based in Russia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, and Georgia, this paper examines a series of exchanges taking place between Ottoman and tsarist officials in the late nineteenth century with regard to a series of questions pertaining to the issue of human mobility. While I focus mainly upon Muslim populations, I also relate these developments to a broader set of policies adopted by both states with regard to the management of not only Muslims, but also other populations. Current studies pertaining to the triangular set of relations linking Russia, the Ottoman Empire, and the populations between them tend to focus upon the singularity of unspeakable acts of violence. An enormous volume of literature pertaining to the Armenian genocide exists, as does a smaller amount of literature focusing upon genocides committed by Russia against populations such as the Chechens, Circassians, and Crimean Tatars. In my paper, which is based upon a larger study that I am currently developing, I spin this calculus around to look at similar approaches adopted by both empires and the common sets of threats that they often posed, simultaneously, to the Muslims, Christians, and Jews attempting to cross their borders. Throughout, I look at questions such as: when did officials in Russia and the Ottoman empire permit or encourage mobility, and when did they seek to prevent it? How did these populations shift with respect to time and place? What are the connections, if any, between more aggressive state policies developing with respect to internal population management and the expulsions of populations occurring in both states in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries?