BETWEEN EMPIRES: AZERBAIJAN’S TURKIC–MUSLIMS IN THE CRIMEAN WAR (1853 – 1856)

The Purpose of the Study. This article aims to analyze the role and participation of the Turkic–Muslim population of Azerbaijan in the Crimean War of 1853 – 1856 and to identify the main forms of their Between Empires: Azerbaijan’s Turkic–Muslims in the Crimean War (1853 – 1856) 32 Skhidnoievropeiskyi Istorychnyi Visnyk. Issue 40. 2026 involvement in military, political, and social processes during the conflict. Research Methodology. The study
is based on the principles of historicism and objectivity and employs comparative, analytical, and problemchronological methods. The research relies on the archival materials, official correspondence of the Russian military authorities, and published documentary collections, as well as the Russian and Ottoman historiography. Scientific Novelty. The article systematizes dispersed archival evidence concerning Azerbaijani participation in the Crimean War and highlights both their service in the Russian Imperial Army and their involvement in anti-Russian movements and contacts with the Ottoman Empire. A chief focus is on Muslim cavalry units and individual Azerbaijani officers whose activities have not been sufficiently examined in previous studies. Conclusions. The Crimean War (1853 – 1856) constituted a critical moment for the Turkic–Muslim population of Azerbaijan as an imperial borderland society. Documentary evidence indicates that Azerbaijani participation in the conflict unfolded along two intersecting trajectories: service in Russian military formations – often mediated through elite status and imperial patronage – and various forms of resistance, including desertion, cross-border raiding, and attempts at coordination with Ottoman and Qajar actors. The Russian command’s persistent anxiety about rebellion and transborder mobilization highlights the fragility of imperial control in the South Caucasus during wartime. At the same time, the operational deployment of Muslim cavalry regiments demonstrates the pragmatic dependence of the Russian Empire on local manpower and frontier expertise. Yet his reliance was accompanied by distrust, as religious affiliation and kinship networks could undermine the expected discipline of imperial service. Overall,  Azerbaijani wartime behavior appears less as an expression of stable “loyalty” and more as a contingent strategy shaped by local interests, communal solidarities, and the broader aspiration to escape colonial subjugation.