Iran at the crossroads of the interests of the great powers of the 19th century. Russia and Iran: a brief history of relations How it all began

The relevance of research

For Russian history, the states of the Middle East have traditionally been very important. Russia's trade and political ties with this region go back centuries. The 19th century occupies a special place in the development of Russian-Iranian relations. The strengthening of Russian autocracy and the development of capitalist relations in Russia required the search for new markets and sources of raw materials. The issue of colonies is acquiring paramount importance in the policies of the most developed states in trade and economic terms. Of course, Europeans were primarily attracted by the unexplored riches of Asia. “Contacts with Europeans, sporadic until the 19th century, later became a constant and very important factor in the modern and recent history of these countries”1. The study of the Asian direction of Russian foreign policy of the 19th century is a promising topic of scientific research.

Research on the history of empires is a rapidly developing area of ​​historical science. New approaches to the history of empires are being mastered, in particular, comparative-regional and situational ones. The stereotypes of previous historiography are critically rethought; historians are moving away from an unambiguous assessment of imperial foreign policy as colonial and are striving to reconstruct a complex system of multidirectional interests of all parties participating in the political process. Foreign policy historians are actively mastering methodological approaches characteristic of historical anthropology: the study of mental stereotypes, images of the “Other,” and “imaginary geography.” All of these innovative approaches can and should be applied to the study of turning points in the history of Russian foreign policy. The 1830s-50s were precisely such a stage in the relations of the Russian Empire with Iran:

1 Fadeeva I.L. Specifics of modernization processes in the historical retrospective of the 19th - 20th centuries. // Features of modernization in the Muslim East. Experience from Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan. M., 1997. pp. 9-10. a time when they move from the conflict that characterized the relations of these states in the first third of the century to mutually beneficial cooperation.

It is impossible not to note the significant scientific and practical relevance of the chosen topic. The difficult political situation in Iran, Afghanistan and neighboring states is causing a new surge of interest in the problems of their history and culture. The deployment of NATO troops to Afghanistan, the international discussion of Iran's nuclear program, the difficult search for foreign policy guidelines by the states of Central Asia and Transcaucasia - former Soviet republics - all this makes it necessary to carefully study the history of international relations in the region, including Russian-Iranian relations. The relevance of problems related to international relations in Asia is confirmed by the fact that popular programs dedicated to these issues are aired on television. You can name the series of programs by Mikhail Leontiev “The Great Game”, based on the materials of which a book was subsequently published1. The appearance of programs of this kind on the central channel of Russian television, regardless of the ideological background of this event, demonstrates that the problem of Russian policy in Asia is one of the key topics in the history of international relations and Russian foreign policy. Since the topic continues to maintain its political relevance, there is a wide spread of ideologically charged assessments and tendentious views in existing popular literature." Modern problems of international relations in the Middle East necessitate the need to take into account the historical experience of interaction between the Russian Empire and Iran Qajars. The task of scientific research in this situation is to present the most objective picture of international relations in the Middle East, freed from political bias.

1 Leontyev M. The Great Game. M., 2008. See, for example: Leontyev M. Decree. op.; Shirokorad A.B. Russia unknown war, 1857-1907. M., 2003. England:

The object of the study is the Asian direction of Russian foreign policy.

The subject of the study is Russia's policy in Iran in the 30s - mid-50s. XIX century.

The chronological framework of the study is 1829 - 1854. The conclusion of the Turkmanchay Peace of 1828 opened a new stage in the development of Russian-Iranian relations, marked by a change in the principles of Russian policy in Iran. At the same time, this work does not set the task of analyzing the events of the winter-summer of 1829, that is, the defeat of the Russian mission in Tehran and the redemptive embassy of Khosrow Mirza to St. Petersburg. These issues have repeatedly attracted the attention of researchers, and at the moment there is a significant body of literature devoted to these subjects. The upper limit of the study is October 1854, when the Russian-Iranian Neutrality Convention was concluded, which determined the status of relations between Iran and Russia during the Crimean War. The selected period of research represents a stage in the development of Russian-Iranian relations, during which the formation of a new line of Russian policy in Iran, associated with the conclusion of the Turkmanchay Peace and changed political conditions, took place.

Degree of scientific development.

There is a significant body of literature related in one way or another to the issues under consideration. Two main historiographical traditions can be distinguished in relation to the assessment of Russian policy in Iran in the 19th century - Russian and English-language.

In Russian historiography, three periods can be distinguished in accordance with the dominant ideological and methodological paradigm: pre-revolutionary historiography, Soviet historiography and modern Russian historiography.

In the 19th century, the foundation of Russian historiography of Russian policy problems in Iran was laid. The desire to comprehend the essence of Russian foreign policy during the reign of Nicholas I found its expression in the official monarchist historiography.

The work of Ustryalov1 is typical in this regard. His characterization of Russian foreign policy under Nicholas can be considered an expression of the official position of the Russian authorities. “Having laid its foundations on the principles of strict justice, moderation and disinterested generosity, our Sovereign with honor and dignity supports the political weight of Russia, takes an active part in all great European events in good time, and with his powerful influence, his formidable position, without drawing his sword, alone to say with a glance, destroys plans to shake the common peace of Europe; but does not interfere in the petty, endless disorders of the West, which so worried his predecessor, and responds with contemptuous silence to the frantic cries of demagogues, powerless to disturb the universal silence and therefore unworthy of His attention.” What is important for us here is the passage about acting primarily by influence, “without drawing the sword,” since, as will be clear from what follows, this approach was directly related to Persian affairs. Actually, Ustryalov touches on the issue of Russian-Iranian relations only in the chapter on the Russian-Iranian war of 1826-1828. The meaning of this war in Ustryalov’s ideologies is clear: a fair war for Russia that ended in a brilliant victory. It is curious that in his book there is no place for such an important political event as the Herat crisis of 1837-1838. This is undoubtedly connected with the image of Russian foreign policy that was given above: Russia’s role in the Herat events clearly differs from the scheme given by Ustryalov.

The well-known work of N.K. can be characterized in a similar way. Schilder about Nicholas I3. Since the presentation of the events of Nicholas’s reign was completed only up to 1831, it is natural that among those who fell into

1 Ustryalov N. Historical review of the reign of Sovereign Emperor Nicholas I. St. Petersburg, 1847.

2 Ibid. P. 20.

3 Schilder N.K. Emperor Nicholas I. His life and reign. T. 1-2. St. Petersburg, the work of facts of the history of Russian-Iranian relations can be seen in a standard set: the Russian-Iranian war of 1826-1828, the Turkmanchay peace, the death of the Griboedov mission, the redemptive embassy of Khosrow Mirza. The historian pays considerable attention to the emperor’s attitude towards A.P. Ermolov, the latter’s activities in the Caucasus, the events of the Russian-Iranian war, the course of hostilities, the replacement of Ermolov by Paskevich, etc.1 The Turkmanchay peace is characterized by Schilder as “brilliant”2. It is important to note that Schilder focuses on Nicholas’s adherence to the principles of legitimism, pointing out that Nicholas demanded from Paskevich, in the context of the spread of anti-Shah sentiments in Persia, to preserve the integrity of Persia and the inviolability of the legitimate power and throne of the Shah3.

Other works of the 19th century devoted to Nicholas’s foreign policy do not pay any attention to Russian-Persian relations4. This is explained by the fact that during the reign of Nicholas I the main issue of Russian diplomacy was the Eastern Question, the main problems in relations with European powers were associated with the Ottoman Empire, and it was these problems that interested historians of Nicholas’s reign. The Iranian issue occupied a subordinate place in Russian foreign policy, and Russian political interests in Iran were repeatedly sacrificed to interests in Europe and Turkey.

Russia's advance in Central Asia in the second half of the 19th century led to Russia having a common border with Iran not only to the west, but also to the east of the Caspian Sea. The pacification of the Caucasus, the development of the expanses of Central Asia, the establishment of regular steamship traffic along the Caspian Sea - all this made Iran much closer to Russia. Constant and intensive trade relations, Persian goods in the markets of Russian cities, availability of information, travel - all this aroused the interest of Russians in Iran, and the contradictions between Russia and England in Asia gave this

1 Shilder I.K. Decree. op. T. 2. P. 20-30, 68-76, 80-95.

2 Ibid. P. 92.

3 Ibid. P. 88.

4 Tatishchev S.S. Emperor Nicholas and foreign courts. St. Petersburg, 1889. interest of a political nature. This leads to the appearance of works in which an attempt is made to comprehend Russia’s policy in Asia, in the Qajar state, compare it with the policy of Britain and propose a certain recipe for strengthening Russian influence as opposed to British1. It is impossible not to note the work of Notovich, which appeared during the conclusion of the Russian-English alliance in 1907, proving the need for an alliance between Russia and England and the common interests of these powers, including in Persia2.

Special works appear devoted to various aspects of Iranian history and Russian policy in Iran. Thus, the famous orientalist Hell. P. Berger published a work on Russian deserters in 3

Persia. In it, Berger does not deviate from the official monarchist interpretation of the presence of Russian defectors in Iran4. We note essays devoted to individual issues, such as Russia’s foreign trade (including the development of Russia’s economic ties with Asia, in particular with Iran)5, works on the Russian military presence in the Caspian Sea6, biographical sketches7.

1 Terentyev M.A. Russia and England in Central Asia. St. Petersburg, 1875; Venyukov M.I. Russia and England in Persia // Russian Bulletin. T.CXXXI. 1877 (October) No. 10. pp. 447-471; Sobolev JI.H. A page from the history of the Eastern Question. Anglo-Afghan feud (Essay on the war of 1879-1880) Vol. I-VI. St. Petersburg, 1880-1885; Lebedev V.T. "To India" Military statistical and strategic essay. Future trip project. St. Petersburg, 1898; Marten F.F. Russia and England in Central Asia. St. Petersburg, 1880. Notovich N.A. Russia and England. Historical and political era. St. Petersburg, 1907.

3 Berger Hell. P. Samson Yakovlev Makintsev and Russian fugitives in Persia // Russian antiquity. St. Petersburg, 1876. T. XV. pp. 770-804.

4 See about this: Karskaya JT.H. A.P. Berger - Iranian historian // Historiography of Iran of New and Contemporary Times. Digest of articles. M., 1989. pp. 69-71. This article also contains a bibliography of Berger's works.

5 Gagemeister Yu.A. On European trade in Turkey and Persia. St. Petersburg, 1838; Nebolsin G. Statistical review of Russian foreign trade. Part 2. St. Petersburg, 1850; Semenov A. Study of historical information about Russian foreign trade and industry from the half of the 17th century to 1858. Part 2. St. Petersburg, 1859.

6 Solovkin N. To the 70th anniversary of the existence of the Astrabad sea station. St. Petersburg,

7 Polevoy N. Russian commanders. St. Petersburg, 1845; Pogodin M. Alexey Petrovich Ermolov. Materials for his biography. M., 1863; Ermolov A. A. P. Ermolov in Persia. St. Petersburg, 1909; Khanykov P.V. Essay on the official activities of General Albrand. Tiflis, 1850.

In the 19th century, literature appeared devoted to the Russian-Iranian wars1. It is characterized by the idea of ​​the providential role of Russia in the Caucasus and Asia, and the fair nature of Russia's policy.

Historical and geographical literature about Iran occupies a special place. With the development of Russian-Iranian relations, Russians were no longer satisfied with the available European literature about Persia, although translations of individual works into Russian appeared until the end of the 19th century2. At the beginning of the 19th century, Russian descriptions of Persia and neighboring countries appeared. The first large-scale work of this kind was Bronevsky’s work dedicated to the Caucasus3. Written during the period of Russia’s active struggle for the Caucasus, this large-scale work was supposed to become a kind of collection of geographical, ethnographic, historical and political information about the Caucasus. A separate part of this work is the history of Russia’s relations with Iran and the states of Transcaucasia, where the author gives an outline of the development of political relations between Russia and Persia from the 16th to the beginning of the 19th century. One can name a number of other works that provide general information about the history, culture, political system, economy and way of life of Iran4. It is also worth including works that consider Persia primarily from a military point of view and pay significant attention to the Persian army5. The tradition of historical and geographical descriptions of Persia was continued in the second half of the 19th century. famous Russian orientalist Khanykov. First

Zubov P. Picture of the last war between Russia and Persia 1826-1828. With the addition of a Historical and Statistical overview of the conquered cities, and memories of Erivan. St. Petersburg, 1834; Shishkevich M.I. Conquest of the Caucasus. Persian and Caucasian wars // History of the Russian army, 1812-1864. St. Petersburg, 2003.

For example: Druville G. Travel to Persia in 1812 and 1813. Part 1-2. M., 1824; Wils. Modern Persia. Pictures of modern Persian life and character / trans. from English I. Korostovtsov. St. Petersburg, 1887.

3 [Bronevsky, S.M.] Newest News about the Caucasus, collected and supplemented by Semyon Bronevsky: In 2 volumes: vol. 1-2. / preparation of text for publication, prev., note, dictionary of little use. words, signs I.K. Pavlova. St. Petersburg, 2004.

4 [Kaftyrev D.] Historical, geographical and statistical information about Persia. With a map of Persia. Essay by D. Kaftyrev. St. Petersburg, 1829; Detailed description of Persia, and the states of Kabul, Seidstan, Sindi, Balkh, Beludshistan, the land of Khorassan; also Georgia and the Persian provinces annexed to Russia. With the addition of a description of the Persian campaign against Russia in 1826, 1827 and 1828. Parts 1-3. M., 1829.

5 For example: Zolotarev A.M. Military statistical sketch of Persia. St. Petersburg, 1888. It is necessary to note his work, which is a report on his expedition to Khorasan1. In addition to the actual geographical and meteorological information, the work contains an analysis of British literature about Persia. Ritter's work on Iran, which is part of the latter's extensive work on the geosciences of Asia, is published under the editorship of Khanykov. Moreover, in the Russian edition, Ritter’s work itself constituted only part of the publication, the second part was made up of a lengthy addition by Khanykov. One can name other works of this type devoted to the Caucasus and Central Asia3.

The beginning of the 20th century was marked by the appearance of works containing extensive reviews of sources and literature on the history of Iran4.

A new stage in the development of Russian historiography began after the October Revolution of 1917. The formation of Soviet power and a change in the principles of the state’s foreign policy, which included, among other things, the abolition of unequal treaties between the Russian Empire and Asian countries, a change in the methodological paradigm, leads to a rethinking of many problems associated with the policy of the Russian Empire in the countries of the East. A new methodology for studying these problems was associated with the use of Marxism. Accordingly, the class interests of Russian landowners and the commercial and industrial bourgeoisie were considered as the driving force of Russian policy, which determined its goals and objectives in Asia. The formation of the Marxist methodology for the problems of Russian politics in Iran began in the 20-30s, when the first works on the topic under consideration appeared. This and

1 Khanykov N. Expedition to Khorasan. M., 1973.

2 Ritter K. Iran. Part 1. Translated and supplemented by N.V. Khanykov. St. Petersburg, 1874.

3 Evetsky O. Statistical description of the Transcaucasian region. St. Petersburg, 1835; Khudabashev A. Review of Armenia, in geographical, historical and literary terms. St. Petersburg, 1859; Khanykov N. Description of the Bukhara Khanate. St. Petersburg, 1843; Veselovsky N. Essay on historical and geographical information about the Khiva Khanate from ancient times to the present. St. Petersburg, 1877; Lobysevich F.I. Forward movement to Central Asia in trade and diplomatic-military relations. Additional material for the history of the Khiva campaign of 1873 (from official sources) St. Petersburg, 1900.

4 Krymsky A., Freytag K. History of Persia, SS literature and dervish theosophy. M.„ 1909. general works on the history of Qajar Iran1, and works devoted to its international legal status2, the history of the Iranian army3. They are characterized by journalisticism, a vulgarly applied class approach to assessing the actions of the tsarist government in Iran, and a lack of sufficient reasoning and evidence base. Russian policy in Iran is characterized as aggressive, colonial and imperialist. Such characteristics clearly demonstrate disdain for Russia’s geopolitical interests in the East and the desire to show the class-alien nature of imperial Russia. At the same time, not yet bound by strict ideological restrictions, translations of individual Western authors about Russian policy in Iran and Anglo-Russian contradictions in Asia are being published4.

In the 1940s - early 1990s. A significant number of Soviet works are being published that in one way or another touch on the problem of Russian policy in Iran. Despite the obvious political bias, a significant part of the works dating back to this period can be called scientific in the full sense of the word. Many studies published at this time are distinguished by the use of a serious source (primarily archival) base, the consistent use of Marxist methodology and the desire to derive the goals of Russian policy in Iran based on the economic interests of Russia and the characteristics of its socio-economic development. Many provisions of these works remain scientifically relevant to this day.

Russian foreign policy in the first half of the 19th century, the foreign policy of Nicholas I, repeatedly became the object of study by Soviet researchers. It is important to note that these works are characterized

1 Pavlovich M., Iranian S. Persia in the struggle for independence. M., 1925; Shitov G.V. Persia under the rule of the last Qajars. L., 1933. Sonnenstral-Piskorsky A.A. International trade treaties of Persia. M.,

3 Rosenblum I.R. Persian army. With a brief historical outline of the development of the armed forces of Persia in the 19th century. Tehran, 1922.

4 Ruir. Anglo-Russian rivalry in Asia in the 19th century / trans. from fr. A.M. Sukhotin. M. 1924. focusing on European politics and the Eastern Question. This is not surprising, since these directions were decisive in the first half of the 19th century. The actual problem of Russian policy in the Middle East is given very little attention in works of this type; Iran is mentioned only in the context of Russian-Turkish relations, European politics and in connection with the war of 1826-1828.1

General works appear on the history of Iran, including an outline of the period under study, as well as works on Qajar Iran. They are characterized by uniformity in defining the goals of Russian policy in Iran in the 19th century, which is characterized as colonial and aggressive; Iran is not considered at all as an independent player in the international game. The confrontation between Russia and Great Britain in Iran is determined by their struggle for the Iranian market. Another important point is the uneven distribution of material chronologically. If some periods of history (the first third of the 19th century, the turn of the 40s - 50s) receive significant attention, then others (1830s - 1840s) receive significantly less material. Some provisions of the researchers are very outdated. One can hardly agree with M.S.’s thesis. Ivanov that England was against the campaign of Mohammad Shah, since during this period the British were preparing for a war with Russia, for the separation of Transcaucasia and the khanates of Central Asia from Russia3.

A number of theses expressed in the work of N.A. Kuznetsova, is important for this study. Thus, she notes that the period of the late XVIII - first third of the XIX centuries. was the most difficult in the history of diplomatic relations between the two countries, which was due to the clash of their interests in the Caucasus and the Trans-Caspian region. However, the tragedy in Tehran forced

1 For example: Kinyapina N.S. Foreign policy of Russia in the first half of the 19th century. M., 1963; Her newest works can be attributed to the same direction. See: Kinyapina N.S. Foreign policy of Nicholas I // New and Contemporary History. No. 1,2. 2001. Ivanov M.S. Essay on the history of Iran. M., 1952; History of Iran. Rep. ed. M.S. Ivanov. M., 1977; Kuznetsova N.A. Iran in the first half of the 19th century. M., 1983.

3 Ivanov M.S. Essay on the history of Iran. M., 1952. S. 149; History of Iran. Rep. ed. M.S. Ivanov. M., 1977. P. 237. and Iran and Russia begin to reconsider the foundations of their policies1. That is, in her work, 1829 acts as a milestone in the development of Russian-Iranian relations. Kuznetsova makes an attempt to give an outline of Russian-Iranian relations in the 30s and 40s. XIX century, however, it should be noted that it is of a review nature and contains factual inaccuracies. At the same time, an important conclusion of the researcher is that the Herat crisis of 1837-1838. was a kind of test of the strength of Russia and Great Britain in the Middle East.

During this period, the main directions of research into international relations in the Middle East in the 19th century are highlighted. The most important among them are the problem of colonial expansion, issues of Russian-Iranian diplomatic relations, Iranian-Turkish relations and conflicts, issues of Russian-Iranian (and, more broadly, Russian-Asian) trade and economic relations, and the Herat issue.

British expansion in Asia becomes a separate topic of research. Activation of British policy in various countries of the East in the 19th century. was explained by Soviet scientists based on the needs of capitalist development of England, the need to expand markets for its own industrial goods.

1 Kuznetsova N.A. Decree. op. P. 63. Ibid. P. 73.

3 For example: Steinberg E.JI. The history of British aggression in the Middle East. M., 1951; Shostakovich S.V. From the history of British aggression in the Near and Middle East (Forging together an anti-Russian Iranian-Turkish bloc by British diplomacy in the first half of the 19th century) // Scientific notes of the Department of History of the USSR and the Department of General History of the Irkutsk State Pedagogical Institute. Issue XI. Irkutsk, 1955. P. 125-154. Tikhonova A.A. From the history of English penetration into Persia at the beginning of the 19th century // Scientific notes of the Yaroslavl State Pedagogical Institute named after. K.D. Ushinsky. Issue XXII (XXXII). General history. Yaroslavl, 1957. pp. 269-286.

A significant amount of work is devoted to the study of Russian-Iranian relations in the 19th century. Chronologically, they cover the period of the first third of the century, up to the conclusion of the Turkmanchay Peace, and the end of the 19th century1.

Among them, we should highlight the work of L.S. Semenov". Based on significant material involved, the author shows the international situation in the Middle East in the 20s of the 19th century. It is important to note that the researcher examines the problem of Russian policy in Iran in the context of international relations of this time. Thus, he notes that an important factor , which influenced Iran's outbreak of war with Russia was the promise of support from Turkey and England. L. S. Semenov reveals the role of British diplomacy in Russian-Iranian relations, both during the Russian-Iranian war and after its end. In particular, he states that England prevented the conclusion of a peace treaty on the terms proposed by Russia. The treaty itself is assessed ambiguously by the researcher. On the one hand, it reflected Russia’s colonial interests in Iran and made Iran a dependent state. After its conclusion, England began to seek rights similar to Russia in Iran. On the other hand, this agreement played a positive role in the life of the peoples of Transcaucasia, freeing them from the Shah's oppression and directing them to the path of capitalist development. Besides,

1 Igamberdyev M.A. Iran in international relations of the first third of the 19th century. Samarkand. 1961; Igamberdyev M.A. Iran in international relations of the first third of the 19th century. Abstract of the dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Historical Sciences. M., 1963; Igamberdyev M.A. Iran in the system of international relations of the first third of the 19th century. Abstract of the dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Historical Sciences. Baku, 1967; Abdullaev F. From the history of Russian-Iranian relations and British policy in Iran at the beginning of the 19th century. Abstract of the dissertation for the degree of candidate of historical sciences. Tashkent, 1965; Abdullaev F. From the history of Russian-Iranian relations and British policy in Iran at the beginning of the 19th century. Tashkent, 1971; Balayan B.P. International relations of Iran in 1813-1828. Abstract of the dissertation for the degree of candidate of historical sciences. Yerevan, 1963; Balayan B.P. International relations of Iran in 1813-1828. Yerevan, 1967; Balayan B.P. Diplomatic history of the Russian-Iranian wars and the annexation of Eastern Armenia to Russia. Abstract of the dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Historical Sciences. Yerevan, 1984; Mannanov B. From the history of Russian-Iranian relations at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries. Tashkent, 1964. Semenov JI.C. Russia and international relations in the Middle East in the 20s of the XIX century. L., 1963. The researcher notes the important role of trade in Russian-Iranian relations. One cannot but agree with his conclusion that trade in Iran was a very important factor in Russian policy in this country. He points out that both countries were so interested in mutual trade that it did not stop during the war of 1826-1828, moreover, in 1827 it reached its peak. Finally, another important conclusion of the researcher is that he identifies 1830 as a milestone in the development of international relations in the Middle East.

Let us note the work of A.M. Baghbana, dedicated to the international position of Iran in the second quarter of the 19th century.1 The researcher emphasizes the role of the Turkmanchay Treaty in the development of Russian-Iranian relations. Its meaning, according to A.M. Bagban, was that the agreement contributed to the strengthening of the influence of tsarism in the Caucasus and the further economic and political penetration of Russia into the Middle East. Despite the unequal nature of the treaty, according to the researcher, it played an important role in strengthening ties between Russia and Iran. The researcher assigned great importance to the activities of Russian consulates in the development of trade and economic relations between Russia and Iran. Based on statistical material, he concludes about the serious importance of trade in the development of Russian-Iranian relations. As the most important factor in international politics in the Middle East in the period following the conclusion of the Turkmanchay Peace, A.M. Baghban marks the Russian-Iranian confrontation. In his opinion, England, in order to undermine the influence of Russia, resorted to provocations, pressure on the Shah and his entourage, bribery and murder. The researcher, reporting on England's support for Mohammad Shah during the civil strife of 1834, says nothing about Russia's role in these events. In general, many of the provisions expressed by the author are outdated and need to be revised.

1 Bagban A.M. International relations of Iran in the second quarter of the 19th century. Abstract of the dissertation for the scientific degree of candidate of historical science. Baku, 1973.

The topic of the death of the Russian mission in Tehran in 1829 and the redemptive embassy of Khosrow Mirza to St. Petersburg aroused great interest among Soviet scientists. Russian historiography of these events is characterized by the desire to blame the English mission for the tragedy, which paved the way at the court of the Shah and among the population of Tehran for an attack on the mission.

N.A. made a significant contribution to the development of domestic science on the problems of international relations and Russian politics in Asia. Halfin. His works devoted to issues of European and American

2 3 colonial expansion, individual Russian figures in Iran, historiography of international relations in the Middle East4, are carried out at a high level and deserve careful study.

The work of N.A. is of great importance in the study of relations between Russia and the countries of the East. Khalfin about Russian-Central Asian relations in the first half of the 19th century. The author reveals Russia's trade interests in the lands of

1 Pashuto V.T. Diplomatic activities of A.S. Griboedova // Historical notes. No. 24. 1947. P. 111-159; Petrov G.M. New materials about the murder of A.S. Griboyedova // Scientific notes of the Institute of Oriental Studies. T.8. Iranian collection. M., 1953; Enikolopov I. Griboyedov in Georgia. Tbilisi, 1954; Enikolopov I. Griboedov and the East. Yerevan, 1954; Enikolopov I. Griboedov and the East. Yerevan, 1974; Shostakovich S.V. Diplomatic activities of A.S. Griboedova. M., 1960; Shostakovich S.V. The origin of the “Relation” about the death of the Griboyedov mission // Proceedings of the Irkutsk State University. A.A. Zhdanova. T. XVI. Historical and philological series. Vol. 3. Irkutsk book publishing house, 1956. P. 149-159; Ovchinnikov M. Special mission. Essays about Griboyedov. Yerevan, 1979. Balayan B. Blood on the Diamond “Shah”: The Tragedy of A.S. Griboedova. Yerevan, 1983; Balatsenko Yu.D. On the question of the composition of the redemptive embassy of Khosrow Mirza in 1829 to Russia // Written monuments and problems of the history of culture of the peoples of the East. XX annual scientific session of the Leningrad Institute of Oriental Studies of the USSR Academy of Sciences (reports and communications 1985) Part 1. M., 1986. P. 102-109; Balatsenko Yu.D. The route of Khosrow Mirza's mission from Moscow to St. Petersburg in the summer of 1829. // Written monuments and problems of the history of culture of the peoples of the East. XXIII annual scientific session of the Leningrad Institute of Oriental Studies of the USSR Academy of Sciences (reports and communications 1988) Part 1. M., 1990. P. 125132. Khalfin N.A. The failure of British aggression in Afghanistan (19th century - early 20th century). M., 1959; Halfin N.A. The creation and fall of the British colonial empire. M., 1961; Halfnp N.A. The beginning of American expansion in the Mediterranean and Indian Ocean countries. M., 1958.

3 Khalfin N.A. Drama in the “Paris” rooms // Questions of history. 1966. No. 10. P. 216220; Khalfin N.A., Rassadina E.F. N.V. Khanykov is an orientalist and diplomat. M., 1977.

4 Khalfin N.A., Volodarsky M.I. Modern bourgeois historiography on some issues of international relations in the Middle East in the first third of the 19th century // Questions of history. 1971. No. 7. P. 192-199. east of the Caspian Sea1. The researcher notes the close connection between Russian-Central Asian trade and Russian-Iranian trade, which allows us to consider Russia’s policy in Central Asia in the context of Russian-Iranian relations.

Research by N.A. Khalfin are also important for analyzing the problem of Russia’s participation in the Iranian-Turkish border conflicts. Let us note his book on the Iranian Kurds, in which he reports important facts about Russia’s role in the Iranian-Turkish border settlement process, emphasizing its desire to increase its influence in Iran through participation in the demarcation commission.

The problem of Iranian-Turkish relations in general was quite relevant for Soviet researchers. Issues such as the Iranian-Turkish conflicts, the Kurdish issue, the Iranian-Turkish delimitation and Russia’s participation in it aroused the interest of researchers3.

An important area of ​​research by Soviet scientists is the economic policy of the government of the Empire in Iran and Russian-Iranian trade and economic relations. One can name several works devoted to these problems. These works are distinguished by the professionalism of their analysis of the problem, excellent availability of sources, and high representativeness of the results."4 The first serious work of this kind, actively used by subsequent researchers, was the book

1 Halfin N.A. Russia and the khanates of Central Asia (first half of the 19th century) M.,

1974. Halfii N.A. The struggle for Kurdistan (The Kurdish question in international relations of the 19th century) M., 1963.

3 Tayari M.A. Iranian-Turkish military conflicts and the Kurds in the first quarter of the 19th century. Abstract of the dissertation for the degree of candidate of historical sciences. Tbilisi, 1986; Aslanov R.B. Iranian-Turkish relations in the 20-60s of the 19th century. Abstract of the dissertation for the degree of candidate of historical sciences. Baku, 1984.

4 For example: Shostakovich S.V. From the history of English economic expansion in Iran (Anglo-Iranian trade in the first decades of the 19th century) // Proceedings of the Irkutsk State University. A.A. Zhdanova. T. XII. Historical and philological series. Leningrad University Publishing House, 1956. pp. 54-82; Ismatov I. The role of the Nizhny Novgorod fair in trade relations between Russia and Central Asia and Iran (XIX - early XX centuries). Abstract of the dissertation for the degree of candidate of historical sciences. Tashkent, 1973; Agaev H.A. Trade and economic relations between Iran and Russia in the 18th-19th centuries. M., 1991.

M.K. Rozhkova1. This fundamental work laid the foundation for the study of Russian economic policy in the Middle East. The main conclusion of the work is that Russian policy in Iran was determined by the needs of the Russian bourgeoisie, which the tsarist government was guided by when determining the line of its policy. Works by N.G. Kukanova focuses on the activities of Russian consuls in Iran, who were the direct conductors of the economic policy of the Russian Empire in this state.

A number of works by Soviet researchers are specifically devoted to the Herat problem. Work by P.P. Busheva3 is distinguished by a thorough study of the issue and significant material involved. However, it is devoted mainly to the crisis of 1856-1857. Let us note the works of G.A. Akhmedzhanov on the Herat issue4. Describing the events of the Herat crisis of 1837-1838, the author does not use data from the archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs at all, which, given the chosen topic of research, can hardly be considered justified. Works devoted to the history of regions and states adjacent to Iran are of some importance for the study of the Herat problem5. The most comprehensive study of the Herat crisis of 1837-1838. contains the work of A.JI. Popova6. In general, it should be stated that the problem of the Herat crisis of 1837-1838. has not been studied in the domestic literature

1 Rozhkova M.K. Economic policy of the tsarist government in the Middle East in the second quarter of the 19th century and the Russian bourgeoisie. M., 1949. Kukanova N.G. Essays on the history of Russian-Iranian trade relations in the 17th - first half of the 19th centuries (based on materials from Russian archives) Saransk, 1977; Kukanova N.G. Trade relations between Russia and Iran in the first half of the 19th century // Russian-Iranian trade. 30-50s of the 19th century: collection of documents / compiled by N.G. Kukanova. - M., 1984;

3 Bushev P.P. Herat and the Anglo-Iranian War of 1856-1857. M., 1959.

4 Akhmedzhanov G.A. English expansion in the Middle East and the Herat issue in 40-50. XIX century // Proceedings of the Central Asian State University.

B.I. Lenin. Some issues of international relations in the East. Tashkent, 1960.

pp. 39-62. Akhmedzhanov G.A. The Herat bridgehead in the plans of British aggression in the Middle East and Central Asia in the 19th century (30-80s). Abstract of the dissertation for the degree of candidate of historical sciences. Tashkent, 1955; Akhmedzhanov G.A. The Herat question in the 19th century. Tashkent, 1971.

5 Massoy V.M., Romodin V.A. History of Afghanistan. M., 1965. T.2; History of Afghanistan from ancient times to the present day / rep. ed. Yu.V. Gankovsky. M., 1982.

6 Popov A. JI. The struggle for the Central Asian bridgehead // Historical notes. No. 7. historiography is in full force, and existing treatments add little that is new to the traditional versions of British historiography.

Of particular note are the works of D.M. Anarkulova and M.S. Ivanov, dedicated to the turbulent events in Iran at the turn of the 1840s-1850s.1 Performed at a high professional level, they provide a detailed picture of the complex diplomatic struggle of the European powers in Iran during this period, which makes them very valuable for this study. Considering the fact that this period is one of the least studied in the history of Russian-Iranian relations, the factual data provided by researchers makes it possible to clarify many issues of Russian diplomacy in Iran at the turn of the 40-50s. XIX century This especially applies to the works of D.M. Anarkulova. Since the researcher uses many British and Iranian materials that turned out to be unavailable during the preparation of this study, the information provided in her works about Russian diplomacy in Iran is of very great importance. D.M. Anarkulova notes that Russian and British diplomats sought to use the interregnum situation in Iran to strengthen their own influence in this country.

A number of works are devoted to the study of establishing contacts between Russia and the countries and peoples of Central Asia, the Caucasus and Transcaucasia2. All of them are characterized by consideration of Russian-Iranian relations themselves exclusively in the context of Russia’s contacts with the peoples of these regions. Most of the relevant works were written by researchers from the Central Asian and Caucasian republics, and the attention of researchers is focused on the problems of the relevant areas.

1 Anarkulova D.M. Reforms of Mirza Taghi Khan (1848-1851): their social and political significance. Abstract of the dissertation for the degree of candidate of historical sciences. M., 1977; Anarkulova D.M. Social and political struggle in Iran in the middle of the 19th century. M., 1983; Ivanov M.S. Antifeudal uprisings in Iran in the mid-19th century. M., 1982; Ivanov M.S. Babid revolts in Iran 1848-1852. M., 1939. See, for example: Dzhakhiev G.A. Russia and Dagestan at the beginning of the 19th century: Dagestan in Russian-Iranian and Russian-Turkish relations. Makhachkala, 1985; Arakelyan G.H. The spiritual center of Etchmiadzin in the sphere of confrontation between Russia and Iran in the first quarter of the 19th century according to Persian and Turkish documents of the Matenadaran. Abstract of the dissertation for the degree of candidate of historical sciences. Yerevan, 1991.

In 1990, the work of O.I. was published. Zhigalina, dedicated to the analysis of foreign policy concepts of British policy in the Middle East in the 19th century1. The author gives an overview of the emergence of British political journalism, examines its ideological trends and the personalities of ideologists. The work is interesting primarily as the first work in Russian devoted to the problem of theoretical understanding in Britain in the 19th century. Russian-Iranian contradictions in Asia. The researcher notes the appearance in the 1830s. in Great Britain such a direction of socio-political thought as British political Russophobia. Its representatives, as shown by O.I. Zhigalin, actively participated in the formation of British public opinion through the publication of pamphlets and articles. Many leaders of this movement were conductors of British policy in Asia, which made their influence on the development of Anglo-Russian contradictions in Iran very significant.

The collapse of the Soviet Union and the breakdown of a single methodological paradigm, which occurred in the early 1990s, became the boundary separating a new stage in the development of Russian historical science from the Soviet period. The liberation of researchers from ideological pressure allowed the emergence of research topics that were not raised at all during the Soviet period. Over the almost twenty years that have passed since the collapse of the Soviet state, too little work has been published on the topic of interest to us to allow us to draw any general conclusions regarding trends and directions in the historiography of the modern era.

An important area of ​​research in modern Russian historiography on the problems of contacts between Russia and the countries of the East is the study of the problems of Orientalism and the characteristics of Orientalism in Russia.

1 Zhigalina O.I. Great Britain in the Middle East (XIX-early XX centuries) Analysis of foreign policy concepts. M., 1990.

In 2000, the work of S.V. was published. Soplenkova “Road to Arzrum: Russian public thought about the East”1. The author raises a new topic for Russian science, namely, the perception of Asia, Asian states, especially those bordering Russia, by Russian educated society. The researcher analyzes the process of formation of stable stereotypes of perception of Asia in Russia, such concepts as “Asian luxury”, “eastern wisdom”, etc. The work attempts to give a general outline of the formation of Russians' ideas about Asia. These ideas were not only broadcast in newspapers and magazines, but also had an indirect (and often direct) influence on the foreign policy of the Russian Empire. This work is apparently the most serious study of Russian Orientalism existing in Russian. In general, the study of Orientalism in Russia has become very popular in recent years. Works devoted to the imperial history of the Caucasus and Central Asia contain sections on the peculiarities of Orientalism in Russia.

In recent years, there has been a revival of interest in the study of Russian-Iranian ties in the military sphere. Works were published dedicated to Russian deserters in Persia3, the Russian military mission and the Persian Cossack brigade4.

Finally, let us note the book by S.A. published in 2009. Sukhorukov “Iran: between Britain and Russia. From politics to economics"5. It should be noted,

1 Soplenkov S.V. The road to Arzrum: Russian social thought about the East (first half of the 19th century). M., 2000. See also: Soplenkov S.V. "The Golden Path to Asia", or Russian plans of the 18th - mid-19th centuries. regarding land trade with foreign Asia // Foreign East: questions of the history of trade with Russia. Digest of articles. M., 2000.

Northern Caucasus as part of the Russian Empire / ed. IN. Bobrovnikov, I.L. Babich. M., 2007; Central Asia as part of the Russian Empire / ed. S.N. Abashpn, D.Yu. Arapov, N.E. Bekmakhanova. M., 2008.

3 Kibovsky A. Bagaderan. Battalion of Russian deserters in the Persian Army // Motherland. 2001. No. 5; Kibovsky A. “Bagaderan” - Russian deserters in the Persian army. 1802-1839 // Zeichgauz. No. 5. 1996. pp. 26-29.

4 Krasnyak O.A. The formation of the Iranian regular army in 1879-1921. (based on materials from the archives of the Russian military mission). M., 2007; Strelyanov P.N. (Kalabukhov) Cossacks in Persia. 1909-1918 M., 2007.

5 Sukhorukoe S.A. Iran: between Britain and Russia. From politics to economics. St. Petersburg, 2009. that having defined the subject of research so broadly (as well as the chronological framework), the author was unable to properly structure his work. This has led to the fact that the researcher often jumps from topic to topic, loses his thoughts, and disrupts the flow of presentation of the material. The work is largely compilative in nature and does not bring independent conclusions to the problems under study.

Considerable attention is paid to the problems of Russian policy in the Middle East in English-language literature. It includes not only British research itself, but also works published in America, including those created by ethnic Iranians. It is possible to single out this entire vast layer of seemingly heterogeneous publications into a single group, since most English-language works are characterized by a similar view of the problem of Russian policy in Iran in the 19th century. This view was adopted from British politically engaged literature of the century before last and has not been completely eradicated to this day. One of the reasons for this persistence of ideas is the fact that English-language literature, up to the present day, has been predominantly based on British documentary sources, with significant neglect of existing Russian documents. Given the nature of nineteenth-century British documents, it is clear that the resulting picture is not free from serious distortions.

English-language historiography began in the 19th century. Many political and public figures in Great Britain watched with alarm the increasing international influence of Russia after the victory over Napoleon and the Congress of Vienna. We can say that in the thirties a special direction of socio-political thought was formed in England, namely, British political Russophobia. Its representatives, who themselves, as a rule, worked in one capacity or another in the countries of the East and knew from their own experience about the existence of serious contradictions between Russia and England in Asia, sought to convey to British society and its political elite the idea that Russian policy in Asia , in particular in Iran, is aggressive in nature, which aims

22 Russian policy is to seize India and that Britain should be vigilant and prevent the implementation of Russia's grand designs in the East. The belief in the aggressive goals of Russian policy in the East was based on the so-called “Testament of Peter I” - a forgery that first appeared in France during the Napoleonic wars and was subsequently published in England1. According to Russophobes, Britain was criminally careless in the East and its policy in this region should have been tougher. The founders of this trend are David Urquhart and John McNeill, who launched a real anti-Russian campaign in the press in the thirties. Urquhart undertakes the publication of the famous “Portfolio” - a multi-volume collection of anti-Russian articles and tendentiously selected diplomatic documents that were supposed to show the “true” face of Russian politics. Both he and McNeil published pamphlets that became very popular3. At the peak of their popularity, they are sent to diplomatic work, the first to Turkey, the second to Iran. The works of

1 Nell L. “Peter's Will”. Pamphlet exhibiting the political will of Peter the Great, as a key to the politics of Russia, and shewing how Napoleon had foretold the present war. Colombo, 1856. The Portfolio; a collection of state papers, and other documents and correspondence, historical, diplomatic, and commercial. L., 1836-1844. Vol. 1-6.

3 Among the most famous works of Urquhart are the following: Urquhart D. An appeal against faction, in respect to the concurrence of the present and the late administrations, to prevent the house of commons from performing its highest duties. To which is added an analysis of Count Nesselrode's Despatch of the 20th Oct. 1838. London, 1843; Urquhart D. Progress of Russia in the West, North, and South, by opening the sources of opinion and appropriating the channels of wealth and power. London, 1853; Urquhart D. The Edinburgh review and the Affghan war. Letters re-printed from the Morning Herald. London, 1843. McNeil's most famous opus is his "The Advance and Present Position of Russia in the East." I know three editions of this pamphlet: Progress and present position of Russia in the East. London, 1836; Progress and present position of Russia in the East. London, 1838, as well as a fourth updated edition: McNeill J. The Progress and present position of Russia in the East: an historical summary. Fourth edition, continued down to the present time. London, 1854. The first and second editions are identical, the third could not be found.

I 2 by de Lacey Evans, pamphlets by other authors. Representatives of this trend believed that in order to counteract Russia, Britain should strengthen its position in the Middle East by creating a number of pro-English oriented buffer states between British India and Russia, including Persia. Political events in the Middle East received pronounced anti-Russian interpretations in the works of these authors, containing numerous invective towards Russia.

Russia's conquests in Central Asia stirred up public debate in Great Britain, after a lull in the 1840s and 1850s. In the second half of the 19th and early 20th centuries, works appeared that affirmed the thesis about the expansionist nature of Russian foreign policy and the need for a more active British political line in Asia to counteract Russia. The most famous were the works of Vambery4,

Rawlinson, Bulger, Marvin, Curzon.

1 Evans Lacy, de. On the designs of Russia. London, 1828; Evans Lacy, de. On the practicability of an invasion of British India; and on the commercial and financial prospects and resources of the Empire. London, 1829. Remarks on the conduct and probable designs of Russia. London, 1832; Russia, Persia, and England//The Quarterly Review. V. LXIV (June-October, 1839). Art. VII. London. 1839.

3 For more information about this direction of British social thought, see: Zhigalina O.I. Decree. op.

4 Vambery A. Central Asia and the Anglo-Russian frontier question: a series of political papers. London, 1874.

5 Rawlinson H. England and Russia in the East. London, 1875.

6 Boulger D.Ch. England and Russia in Central Asia. Vol. I. London, 1879.

7 Marvin Ch. Merv, the Queen of the World and the scourge of the man-stealing Turcomans. With an exposition of the Khorassan Question. L., 1881; Marvin Ch. Russia's power os seizing Herat, and concentrating an army there to threaten India. L., 1884; Marvin Ch. The Russians at the gates of Herat. London - New York, 1885; Marvin Ch. The Russians at Merv and Herat, and their power of invading India. London, 1883.

8 Curzon G.N. Persia and the Persian Question. L., 1892. V. I-II; Curzon G.N. Russia in Central Asia in 1889 and the Anglo-Russian question. L., 1889.

The same view was adopted by the authors of numerous books published in the 19th and early 20th centuries. in English, “Histories of Persia” and neighboring countries, especially since the authors of these “Histories” were often the same people who wrote political articles." Works devoted to the Anglo-Afghan wars and related subjects were also published repeatedly in the 19th century have a similar focus2.

The aggressive position towards Russian politics was not shared by all researchers of the issue. There were people who believed that Russia and England had a common civilizing mission in Asia, and therefore these countries should cooperate and not conflict3.

The practice of writing books on Iranian history by diplomats and politicians was also adopted in the United States. The first diplomatic representative of this country in Iran, Benjamin, at the end of the 19th century. published a book containing the history of Iran from the mythical Shahs to the Qajars4.

After the First World War, the development of the problems of the Anglo-Russian confrontation in the Middle East continued. Works appear on Anglo-Russian relations in the 19th century, studies explaining British foreign policy based on economic factors, articles on Russian policy in the Middle East, and on the Herat problem5. One can name Habberton's work on the Anglo-Russian

1 Among the most important, the following works are worth noting: Watson R.G. A history of Persia from the beginning of the nineteenth century to the year 1858. L., 1866; Piggot J. Persia -Ancient and Modern. L., 1874; Sykes P.M. A History of Persia. L., 1915. Vol. II; Sykes P. Persia. Oxford. At the Clarendon Press. 1922. Sykes P. A History of Afghanistan. L., 1940. Vol. I; Ferrier J.P. History of the Afghans. L., 1858; Hamilton A. Afghanistan. Per. from English, St. Petersburg, 1908. For example: Durand N.M. The first Afghan war and its causes. L., 1879; Kaye J.W. History of the war in Afghanistan. L. 1851. Vol. I; Mohan Lai. Life of the amir Dost Mohammed Khan of Kabul. L„ 1846. Vol. I. l

Trevelyan Charles, Sir, Bart. England and Russia // Macmillan's Magazine, 42 (1880: May/Oct.) p. 152-160.

4 Benjamin S.G.W. Persia. London-New York, 1891.

5 Crawley C.W. Anglo-Russian Relations 1815-40 // Cambridge Historical Journal, Vol. 3, No. 1 (1929), pp. 47-73; Bailey F.E. The Economics of British Foreign Policy, 1825-50 // The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 12, No. 4 (Dec., 1940), pp. 449-484; Kerner R.J. Russia's New Policy in the Near East after the Peace of Adrianople; Including the Text of the Protocol of 16 September 1829 // Cambridge Historical Journal, Vol. 5, No. 3 (1937), pp. 280-290. relations in connection with Afghanistan.1 With respect to the period of political events in the Middle East that interests us, it does not bring anything new in comparison with the literature of the 19th century.The main sources for the history of the Herat crisis of 1837-1838 were published British parliamentary documents, as well as the above-mentioned work of Kaye, dedicated to the Anglo-Afghan War. Although the author's attempt to systematize political events in the Middle East in the 1830s is very interesting, the use of only British materials greatly impoverishes the work.

After the Second World War, the West begins active research into various aspects of the history of Iran and international relations in the Middle East, which inevitably draws attention to issues of Russian policy in Iran and the Anglo-Russian confrontation. However, it should be noted that in parallel, certain private issues of Iranian political, economic and social history are also specially studied, which, nevertheless, have a close connection with the problems that interest us.

A significant layer of work consists of general works on the history of Qajar Iran. It should be noted that the issue of international relations of Qajar Iran was not the main one for the authors of these works, which is why the corresponding sections of these books do not contain positions fundamentally different from traditional British historiography. It is only important to note that the Russian and British presence in Iran, according to the authors of these works, was a guarantee of maintaining stability in the country.

1 Habberton W. Anglo-Russian relations concerning Afghanistan, 1837-1907 // Illinois Studies in the Social Sciences. Vol. XXI. No. 4. Published by the University of Illinois at Urbana, 1937.

2 Main works: Lambton A.K.S. Qajar Persia. Eleven Studies. London, 1987; Keddie, Nikki R. Iran. Religion, Politics and Society. Collected Essays. Frank Cass, 1980; Keddie, Nikki R. Qajar Iran and The Rise of Reza Khan, 1796-1925. Mazda Publishers. Costa Mesa, California, 1999; Ervand Abrahamian. A history of Modern Iran. Cambridge University Press. 2008.

Among the most important works exploring Russian-Iranian relations are the works of Firuz Kazem-zadeh1. This researcher of Iranian origin specifically studied the problems of Russian policy in Iran. He is the author of the section on Russian-Iranian relations in the seven-volume Cambridge History of Iran. Unlike many of his predecessors, Kazem-zade actively uses Russian sources, which undoubtedly makes his work more thorough. However, in general the researcher is within the framework of the basic concepts of British historiography.

The same words can be said about Yapp’s works analyzing international relations in the Near and Middle East2. These studies, written with input from a wide range of sources, focus primarily on British politics. They do not specifically study the role of Russia in international relations in the East in the second third of the 19th century. It is important to note the emergence of a new topic in Yapp, namely the problem of British ideas about the Russian threat to India3.

Let us note Thornton's study of British policy in Iran in the second half of the 19th century, since it is preceded by a passage giving an interpretation of the goals of British policy in this country4. The author writes that British interests in Iran were based on the need to strengthen and maintain British rule in India. Tehran was the capital where European and Indian politics met. However, as the researcher notes, if liberals have internalized the

1 Kazem-Zadeh F. The struggle for influence in Persia. Diplomatic confrontation between Russia and England. M., 2004; Kazemzadeh F. Iranian relations with Russia and the Soviet Union, to 1921 // The Cambridge History of Iran. In 7 v. V. 7. From Nadir Shah to the Islamic Republic. Cambridge University Press, 2008.

2 Yapp M.E. Disturbances in Western Afghanistan, 1839-41 // Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 26, No. 2 (1963), pp. 288-313; Yapp M.E. Strategies of British India. Britain, Iran and Afghanistan, 1798-1850. Oxford, 1980; Yapp M.E. The Making of the Modern Near East, 1792-1923. London - New York, 1987.

3 Yapp M.A. British Perceptions of the Russian Threat to India // Modern Asian Studies, Vol. 21, No.4. (1987), pp. 647-665.

4 Thornton A.P. British Policy in Persia, 1858-1890. Part I-II // The English Historical Review, Vol. 69, No. 273. (Oct., 1954), pp. 554-579; Thornton A.P. British Policy in Persia, 1858-1890. Part III // The English Historical Review, Vol. 70, No. 274. (Jan., 1955), pp. 55-71.

Palmerston, who was suspicious of Russia, thought that Iran's importance was more related to European politics, but conservatives believed that Iran played a more significant role in Indian politics.

Ramazani’s work, specifically dedicated to the international relations of Iran, unfortunately, pays little attention to Russian-Iranian relations in the first half of the 19th century, and the content of this section actually comes down to a retelling of the provisions of Russian-Iranian treaties1.

The books and articles of Abbas Amanat play an important role in understanding the political situation in Iran in the 19th century. Using a wide range of sources, the author reveals details of the political history of Qajar Iran previously unknown in domestic historical science. Of greatest interest for this study are his works devoted to individual Iranian political figures2. The scientist actively uses British and Iranian materials previously inaccessible to Russian researchers, which makes his work a valuable source of factual information on the diplomatic history of the Qajars. At the same time, his use of Russian materials should be considered insufficient.

1 Ramazani Rouhollah K. The Foreign Policy of Iran, 1500-1941. A Developing Nation in World Affairs. University Press of Virginia/Charlottesville, 1966.

2 Amanat A. Pivot of the Universe: Nasir Al-Din Shah Qajar and the Iranian Monarchy, 1831-1896. University of California Press. Berkeley - Los Angeles - Oxford, 1997; Amanat A. The Downfall of Mirza Taqi Khan Amir Kabir and the Problem of Ministerial Authority in Qajar Iran // International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 23, No. 4. (Nov., 1991), pp. 577-599; Amanat A. "Russian Intrusion into the Guarded Domain". Reflections of a Qajar Statesman // Journal of the American Oriental Society. Vol. 113, No. 1. (Jan. - Mar., 1993). P. 35-56.

The range of issues that attracted the attention of researchers in the second half of the 20th - early 21st centuries. diverse. This includes Russia’s policy in Asia1, the Russian-Iranian war of 1826-1828. , Herat issue, conflicts between Turkey and Iran and the Iranian-Turkish delimitation4, history of the Iranian armed forces5, economic penetration of Western countries into Iran6, source studies of Iranian history. An important area of ​​research by foreign scientists was the study of the role of religion in Iranian society under the Qajars, the relations of power and Shiite leaders - the ulema, the history of the Sufi brotherhoods of O and Ismailism in Iran. Religion played a very important role in Iranian society, which is why many facts of Iran's foreign policy can only be explained taking into account the religious factor. This is true, for example, in relation to the Russian-Iranian wars, or the death of Griboyedov’s mission in Tehran.

1 Bolsover G.H. Nicholas I and the Partition of Turkey // The Slavonic and East European Review, Vol. 27, No. 68 (Dec., 1948), pp. 115-145; Atkin M. The Pragmatic Diplomacy of Paul I: Russia's Relations with Asia, 1796-1801 // Slavic Review, V. 38, No.l. (Mar., 1979), P. 60-74. Barratt G. R., A Note on the Russian Conquest of Armenia (1827) // Slavonic and East European Review, 50:120 (1972: July) p.386-409.

3 Alder G. J. The Key to India?: Britain and the Herat Problem 1830-1863. Part 1-2 // Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 10, No. 2 (May, 1974), pp. 186-209, no. 3 (Oct., 1974), pp. 287-311; Martin V. Social networks and border conflicts: the First Herat War 1838-1841 // War and peace in Qajar Persia: implications past and present. New York, 2008. P. 110-122; Hopkirk P. Big game against Russia. M., 2004.

4 Williamson G. The Turko-Persian War of 1821-1823: winning the war but losing the peace // War and peace in Qajar Persia: implications past and present. New York, 2008. P. 88109; Schofield R. Narrowing the frontier: mid-nineteenth century efforts to delimit and map the Perso-Ottoman border // War and peace in Qajar Persia: implications past and present. New York, 2008. P. 149-173. l Kazemzadeh F. The Origin and Early Development of the Persian Cossack Brigade // American Slavic and East European Review, Vol. 15, No. 3 (Oct., 1956), pp. 351-363; Cronin S. Building a new army: military reform in Qajar Iran // War and peace in Qajar Persia: implications past and present. New York, 2008. P. 47-87.

6 Gilbar G.G. The Opening Up of Qajar Iran. Some Economic and Social Aspects // Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 49, No. 1, In Honor of Ann K. S. Lambton. (1986). pp. 76-89.

7 Farmayan H.F. Observations on Sources for the Study of Nineteenth- and Twentieth-Century Iranian History // International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 5, No. 1. (Jan., 1974), pp. 32-49.

8 Algar H. Religion and state in Iran, 1785-1906. The role of the ulama in the Qajar period. Berkeley - Los Angeles, 1969; Algar H. The Revolt of Agha Khan Mahallati and the Transference of the Isma" or Imamate to India // Studia Islamia, No. 29. (1969), pp. 55-81; Said Amir Aijomand. The Shadow of God and the Hidden Imam. Religion, Political Order, and Societal Change in Shi"ite Iran from the Beginning to 1890. Chicago-London, 1984.

The topic of Griboedov’s mission in Iran has repeatedly attracted foreign researchers, who devoted a number of works to it1. In historiography, a kind of polemic arose between representatives of the Soviet and English-speaking traditions. While the former sought to prove the involvement of the British mission in the death of Griboedov, the latter presented arguments indicating that this accusation was untrue.

A number of works are devoted to economic issues, namely: issues of the Iranian economy, foreign trade activities of Russia, England and Iran, free trade, international trade in the Middle East, etc.2. Among them, special mention should be made of the work of Charles Issawi, who made a significant contribution to the study of the economic history of the Near and Middle East not only through his research, but also through the publication of documents on the economic history of Iran. The publication has become one of the most valuable collections of documents of this kind and has earned justifiable praise from researchers4.

The topic of mutual perceptions, self-representations, “friend” - “stranger” relations, which has been very relevant in recent decades, is also reflected in the context of Russian-Iranian contacts. First of all

1 Costello D.P. A Note on The Diplomatic Activity of A. S. Griboyedov", by S.V. Shostakovich // Slavonic and East European Review - 1961, Dec. - P. 235-244; Harden E. J. An unpublished Letter of Nina Aleksandrovna Griboyedova // Slavonic and East European Review, 49:116 (1971:July) p.437-449; Harden E. J. Griboyedov in Persia: December 1828 // Slavonic and East European Review, 57:2 (1979:Apr.) p.255-267; Kelly L. Diplomacy and murder in Tehran: Alexander Griboyedov and Imperial Russia's Mission to the Shah of Persia. L.-N.Y., 2006. Charles Issawi. An Economic History of the Middle East and North Africa. New York, 1982; Entner M. L. Russo-Persian Commercial Relations, 1828-1914. Gainesville. Florida, 1965; Gallagher J., Robinson R. The Imperialism of Free Trade // The Economic History Review, New Series, Vol. 6, No. 1 (1953), pp. 1-15; Issawi Ch. The Tabriz-Trabzon Trade, 1830-1900: Rise and Decline of a Route // International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 1, No.l. (Jan., 1970), pp. 18-27; Petrov A.M. Foreign Trade of Russia and Britain with Asia in the Seventeenth to Nineteenth Centuries // Modern Asian Studies, Vol. 21, No.4. (1987), pp. 625-637.

3 The Economic History of Iran. 1800-1914/ed. Charles Issawi. The University of Chicago Press. Chicago-London, 1971.

4 Ansari Mostafa. Charles Issawi, "The Economic History of Iran, 1800-1914" (Book Review) // Economic Development and Cultural Change, 23:3 (1975:Apr.) P. 565-568; Ferrier R.W. The Economic History of Iran 1800-1914 by Charles Issawi // International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 11, No. 2. (Apr., 1980), pp. 266-267. One should mention the book by Elena Andreeva, which is extremely important for understanding the ideas that existed in Russian society in the 19th century. about Iran, Iranians, Iranian society and state1. Andreeva used Russian travelogues as the main source for her work, since they, in the researcher’s opinion, best reflect the system of ideas about Iran that existed in the minds of Russians. In addition, Andreeva pays attention to such an important and still insufficiently developed topic as Russian Orientalism: what are its similarities and differences with Western Orientalism. In addition to Andreeva’s work, one can name articles by other authors devoted to similar issues2.

The available Iranian and Afghan historiography, unfortunately, is not of great interest for this work. Iranian works of the 19th century. written from the perspective of traditional official court historiography. They focus on the actions of the Qajar monarchs. The strong influence that England and Russia enjoyed in Iran in the 19th century remains virtually unnoticed by the authors of these works3. Available research of the 20th century. represent general works in which very little attention is paid to the Qajar period of Iranian history. In general, the assessment of Russian policy in Iran in these works is not independent; the judgments go back to the traditional British point of view on these issues. As an explanation for British activity in the Middle East, Iranian historians cite the well-known 19th-century English concept of the threat of a Russian invasion of India. Iran became an arena of struggle between Russia and Great Britain, since it was the only way for Russia to advance to

1 Andreeva E. Russia and Iran in the Great Game: Travelogues and Orientalism. London-New York, 2007.

2 Rannit A. Iran in Russian Poetry // The Slavic and East European Journal, Vol. 17, No.3. (Autumn, 1973), pp. 265-272; Wittfogel K.A. Russia and the East: A Comparison and Contrast // Slavic Review, Vol. 22, No.4. (Dec., 1963), pp. 627-643.

3 See, for example: History of Persia under Qajar Rule / trans, from Persian of Hasan-e Fasa"i"s “Farsname-ye Nasery” by Heribert Busse. New York - London, 1972.

India. The Gulistan and Turkmanchay agreements with Russia are unequivocally assessed as humiliating for the Iranian side1.

It can be stated that the chosen research topic has not received adequate coverage either in Russian or foreign historiography. Based on this, the purpose and objectives of this study are determined.

The purpose of the study is to reveal the essence of Russian policy in Iran in the 30s - the first half of the 50s. XIX century Achieving this goal involves solving the following tasks: Research objectives:

To study the process of formation of the concept of Russian policy in Iran in the first half of the 19th century, based on the history of the development of relations between the Russian and Iranian states;

Determine the influence of those that emerged in Russian society in the first half of the 19th century. stereotypes of perception of the Iranian state and society on the methods of implementing the political objectives of the Russian Empire in Iran;

Reveal the goals of Russian policy in Iran in the 30s - mid-50s. XIX century, in the context of the tasks of socio-economic development of Russia;

To trace the formation of a new line of Russian policy in Iran after the conclusion of the Turkmanchay Treaty of 1828.

Analyze the role of Russia in the Herat conflict of 1837-1838. as a crisis event in the development of international relations in the Middle East;

Show the efforts of Russian diplomacy to streamline relations with Iran and strengthen Russian influence in this country in the late 30s - 40s. XIX century

1 Rishtiya S.K. Afghanistan in the 19th century. M., 1958; Manuchihri Abbas. Political system of Iran. St. Petersburg, 2007; Sha'bani Riza. A brief history of Iran. St. Petersburg, 2008. See also: Halfin N.A., Volodarsky M.I. Modern bourgeois historiography on some issues of international relations in the Middle East in the first third of the 19th century // Questions of history 1971, No. 7, pp. 192-199.

Identify the main directions of Russian policy in Iran during the period of aggravation of the Eastern Question.

The methodological basis of the study is the consistently applied principle of historicism, which involves the study of phenomena in their evolution, which makes it possible to identify the dialectics of the development of historical processes. The methodological basis of the study includes the use of a number of methods of modern historical science, such as historical-genetic, comparative-historical, problem-chronological. These research methods make it possible to examine the historical phenomena being studied in the process of their development, to identify the roots and origins of certain phenomena in the foreign policy of the Russian Empire in Iran, and their relationship with other areas of Russian foreign policy. The most promising method for presenting research material seems to be problem-chronological, since it makes it possible to trace the general line of Russian policy in Iran based on an analysis of individual problems that arose before the government of the Russian Empire. Particular attention should be paid to the need for a systematic approach to the phenomena of the past, since the subject of study chosen in this study is considered as a system of certain processes, actions, and activities, united by a single goal and focus. When considering the problems of perception of Iran and Iranians by Russian society and the political elite, the processes of formation of stable stereotypes of perception of this country, certain behavioral models of Russian diplomats in Iran, methods and techniques of historical anthropology were used to identify the origins of the formation of this set of ideas and stereotypes.

Source base

The period under study is very well provided with sources, both archival and published. The sources at our disposal can be divided into several types. The first type includes legislative materials and regulatory documents. The second type of sources includes office documentation,

33 directly ensured the functioning and coordination of departments and persons responsible for conducting foreign policy. The third type of sources is a variety of materials of an economic, geographical, topographical, reference and statistical nature, including a wide variety of information relating to the Middle East in general and Qajar Iran in particular. The fourth type is represented by materials of personal origin - numerous memoirs, diaries, travel notes, letters. Finally, the last type of sources includes materials from periodicals of the first half of the 19th century.

Sources of the first type are mainly represented by publications of collections of laws and international treaties. Mention should be made of collections of treaties concluded by the Russian Empire with other countries1, publications intended for internal use by employees of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs", British publications of treaties and treatises.

Office materials, which include diplomatic correspondence, instructions, reports, reports, reports, notes, etc., are represented by both archival materials and documentary publications.

Among the entire range of sources, archival materials are of paramount importance due to the high degree of reliability of the information provided in them. For the topic under consideration, the materials stored in the funds of the Archive of Foreign Policy of the Russian Empire (AVPRI) are of greatest value. Number of cases related to the history of Russian-Iranian relations and Russian

1 Collection of treaties, conventions and other acts concluded by Russia with the European and Asian Powers, as well as with the North American United States. St. Petersburg, 1845; Yuzefovich T. Treaties between Russia and the East. Political and trade. M., 2005. Rules for the leadership of the Russian Mission and Consulates in Persia regarding trade and protection of Russian citizens staying there. B.m., b.g.

3 Aitchison C.U. A collection of treaties, engagements and sanads relating to India and neighboring countries. Calcutta, 1892. Vol. X; Hertslet E. Treaties &c, concluded between Great Britain and Persia, and between Persia and other foreign Powers wholly or partially in force on the 1st April, 1891. L., 1891. policies in Iran in 1829-1854. very large, and their analysis requires the scrupulous work of many researchers. For our tasks, the funds “St. Petersburg Main Archives” and “Mission in Persia” were of greatest importance. The files of these funds contain a variety of material about the state of Russian-Iranian relations during the period under review. Of particular interest are the most comprehensive reports on the affairs of Persia, the Caucasus, Asia Minor, Armenia and Central Asia, stored in the “St. Petersburg Main Archive 1-1” fund1. It contains Nesselrode's correspondence with the chief administrator in the Caucasus and with the Russian minister plenipotentiary in Persia, letters from the emperor to the Shah and heir to the Iranian throne, instructions to Russian representatives in Persia, etc. The documents are provided with the emperor's visa. These cases are processed simultaneously according to two inventories: No. 13 (documentary) and No. 781. For convenience, in this work we will indicate the case number according to inventory 781, and next to it in parentheses the document number according to inventory 13. The affairs of the Mission to Persia Foundation are of great importance. One of the most valuable materials contained in this fund are the reports of the Russian agent Jan Vitkevich from Afghanistan for 1837-1838.2 They allow us to supplement our information about this difficult period of development of Russian-British contradictions in the Middle East. In addition to Vitkevich's reports, the fund contains other files that make it possible to bring greater clarity to the events of the Herat crisis of 1837-1838. Other files of this fund, reflecting certain aspects of Russian policy in Iran during the period under review, are also of great interest4. Returning to the problem of the Herat crisis, we need to pay special attention to the file “On the arrival of the Kabul envoy Huseyn Ali in St. Petersburg, and also on the dispatch of Lieutenant Vitkevich to Kabul to enter into immediate relations,” stored in the “St. Petersburg Main Archive 1-6” fund With

1 See, for example: AVPRI. F. “SPb. Main Archive. 1-1". Op. 781. D. 69. D. 70. D. 71. D. 72. D. 78. D. 81.

2 AVPRI. F. 194. “Mission in Persia.” Op. 528/1. D. 2004. D. 131.

3 AVPRI. F. 194. “Mission in Persia.” Op. 528/1. D. 179.

4 See, for example: AVPRI. F. "Mission in Persia." Op. 781. D. 166. D. 168. D. 184. D. 259. D. 2006. D. 2014. D. 2033.

Afghanistan"1. The case is divided into two parts, political and economic. The first part of the case allows us to get an idea of ​​the political background of Lieutenant Vitkevich’s departure to Persia and Afghanistan and of Russian policy in the Middle East during the Herat crisis of 1837-1838.

In addition to the funds of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, materials from the Russian State Military Historical Archive (RGVIA) are of certain importance for this work. The period of Russian-Iranian relations that interests us is reflected in the files of fund No. 446 “Persia”, which includes the period 1726-1916. The materials presented in this archive, since it is focused primarily on military topics, are rather of auxiliary importance for the topic under study. Here is a note from I.F. Blaramberg (in French and Russian) about the siege of Herat by Mohammad Shah, published by the General Staff only at the end of the 19th century. In addition, the archive contains materials about the formation of a regular army in Iran and the state of the armed forces of this state. The most interesting are the following cases: “Note on the armed forces of Persia”3, notes on the morals of the Persians and on the regular Persian army4, the case “On the establishment of regular troops in Persia”5, Khanykov’s report on the state of the Azerbaijani army in 1854.6 All these cases are interesting us mostly in connection with the problem of Russian deserters in Iran in the first half of the 19th century. In this regard, it is worth mentioning the note found here by the Russian officer Albrant about the withdrawal of deserters from Persia. Finally, case No. 352 contains correspondence between Nesselrode, Rosen, and Simonich about Russian-Persian and Turkish-Persian relations, the military-political situation in Persia, and measures to protect the Russian border in 1833-1834.

1 AVPRI. F. “SPb. Main Archive. 1-6". Op. 5. D. 2.

2 RGVIA. Fund No. 446 “Persia”. Case 26. L. 1-40; Case 28. L. 1-40.

3 RGVIA. Fund No. 446 “Persia”. Case 29. L. 1-20.

4 RGVIA. Fund No. 446 “Persia”. Case 168.

5 RGVIA. Fund No. 446 “Persia”. Case 6.

6 RGVIA. Fund No. 446 “Persia”. Case 363. L. 1-6 Vol.

7 RGVIA. Fund No. 446 “Persia”. Case 360.

8 RGVIA. Fund No. 446 “Persia”. Case 352.

In addition to archival materials, documentary publications of various office materials are of great importance for the topic being developed. Among them, the Acts of the Caucasian Archaeographic Commission1 are of greatest importance. Prepared by many years of work by Adolf Petrovich Berger, the Acts represent the most significant collection of documents on the topics of interest to us to date. The leitmotif for the preparation of such a collection was the desire to “settle scores with more than half a century of eventful activity of the Russian Government in the Caucasus” after the end of the Caucasian War. For this purpose, the government decided to create a special Caucasian Archaeographic Commission, which was supposed to prepare documents from local archives for publication, first of all, documents from the archive of the main department of the Caucasian governor. Ad was appointed chairman of the commission. P. Berger, under whose editorship ten volumes of acts were published. The last two volumes were published after Berger’s death, edited by his assistant D. Kobyakov. The materials in the volumes are collected according to a chronological principle: each volume contains information relating to the time of the reign of one or another chief administrator (viceroy) in the Caucasus. In addition to materials related to the history of the Russian presence in the Caucasus, each volume of the Acts contains a section devoted to Russian-Iranian relations in the corresponding period of time. It contains official diplomatic correspondence between St. Petersburg, Tiflis and Tehran, reports from Russian representatives in Persia, Nesselrode relations, notes on various issues, etc. The sections containing documents about the Turkmens and the Caspian Sea are also of particular interest for the analysis of Russian-Iranian relations. This fundamental publication will retain its significance for a long time and will serve more than one generation of researchers.

1 Acts collected by the Caucasian Archaeographic Commission (hereinafter referred to as ACAK) / ed. A.G1. Berger. In 12 volumes. Tiflis, 1866-1904.

2 AKAK. T. 1. Tiflis, 1866. P. III.

In addition to the “Acts,” other publications of individual archival materials were also undertaken in the 19th century1. Particularly worth noting is the report by I.F. Blaramberg, a Russian officer sent to Iran in 1838 as aide-de-camp to the Russian ambassador Simonich. Blaramberg took an active part in the Herat events, after which he compiled a report on the siege of Herat, published at the end of the 19th century in a secret publication of the General Staff2. Compared to many other sources on the Herat crisis, Blaramberg's report looks like the most thorough and conscientious material. Of course, we cannot exclude personal motives in the presentation of events, since Blaramberg is an interested party. However, taking into account the addressee of the report, as well as the fact that Blaramberg’s information presented to the General Staff could be verified through other channels, his report should be recognized as one of our best sources on the siege of Herat in 1837-1838.

Let us note the ongoing publication “Russian Foreign Policy. XIX - early XX centuries”3, although it pays much more attention to Russia’s European policy, its relations with European countries and the Eastern Question than to Russian-Iranian relations. An important milestone in the publication of documentary sources was the publication of materials on Russian-Iranian trade4. A number of materials related to certain aspects of Russian-Iranian relations can be found in collections devoted to Russian relations with the Turkmen5. [Albrant JI.JL] Captain Albrant’s business trip to Persia in 1838, told by himself // Russian Bulletin. M., 1867. T. 68. P. 304-340; [I.A.] Envoys from Afghanistan to Russia in 1833-1836. // Russian antiquity." 1880. T. 28. pp. 784-791. [Blaramberg I.F.] The siege of the city of Herat, undertaken by the Persian army under the leadership of Magomed Shah, in 1837 and 1838 // Collection of geographical, topographical and statistical materials on Asia. St. Petersburg, 1885. Issue. 16. P. 1-40.

3 Foreign policy of Russia in the 19th and early 20th centuries. T. 1-17. M., 1960-2005.

4 Russian-Iranian trade. 30-50s of the XIX century. Collection of documents. Compiled by N.G. Kukanova. M., 1984.

5 The mission of Captain Nikiforov to Khiva and the actions of detachments sent to the Kyrgyz steppe from the Siberian and Orenburg lines to pacify Kenisary Kasymov and other rebels // Collection of materials for the Turkestan region. Volume III. 1841 Tashkent, 1912; Russian-Turkmen relations in the 18th-19th centuries. (before Turkmenistan joined Russia). Collection of archival documents. Ashgabat, 1963.

The most important British documentary publications of the 19th century are collections of diplomatic correspondence on Middle Eastern affairs1. Despite their great value, these collections should be approached with some caution, since Palmerston, in preparing documents for presentation to the British Parliament, made significant adjustments to their content in order to justify his political line in Afghanistan2. The same type of sources should include reports of British residents in the countries of the Middle East3.

Sources containing economic, geographical, topographical, ethnographic, etc. information about the countries of the Middle East4 are of certain importance for this work. Thus, the above-mentioned I.F. Blaramberg, in addition to military operations, was also engaged in carefully collecting all kinds of information about Persia. The result of these researches is his “Statistical Review of Persia”5, which can be called, without exaggeration, a genuine encyclopedia of the life of the Qajar monarchy in the late 1830s. We find here the most diverse and detailed information about the physical geography of Iran, about the ethnographic and linguistic composition of the population of Persia, information about demography, about the occupations of the population, information about trade, obtained by questioning the consuls in Tabriz and Gilan and from merchants, information about the clergy , about the government, administrative divisions of Iran,

1 Correspondence relating to Persia and Afghanistan. Presented to both Houses of Parliament by command of Her Magesty. L., 1839; British and foreign state papers. 1838-1839. V.XXVII. L., 1856. Falsification of Diplomatic Documents. The Affghan Papers. Report and petition of the Newcastle Foreign Affairs Association. L., 1860.

3 Cities & Trade: Consul Abbott on the Economy and Society of Iran 1847-1866/ ed. Abbas Amanat. Ithaca Press. London, 1983; Reports and Papers, Political, Geographical, and Commercial Submitted to Government, by Sir Alexander Burnes, Bo. N.I.; Lieutenant Leech, Bo. E.; Doctor Lord, Bo. M. S; and Lieutenant Wood, I. N.; Employed on Missions in the Years 1835-36-37, in Scinde, Afghanistan, and Adjacent Countries. Calcutta, 1839.

4 See, for example: Seydlitz N. Essay on South Caspian ports and trade // Russian Bulletin. T. LXX. 1867 (August). pp. 479-521; [Melgunov G.] About the southern coast of the Caspian Sea. Appendix to volume III of the notes of Imp. Academy of Sciences. No. 5. St. Petersburg, 1863.

5 [Blaramberg I.F.] Statistical review of Persia, compiled by Lieutenant Colonel I.F. Blaramberg in 1841 // Notes of the Imperial Russian Geographical Society. St. Petersburg, 1853, Book. 7. statistical data on individual provinces, the Persian army, etc. and so on. The information is distinguished by a high degree of reliability, in any case, we often do not have more reliable information.

A very important type of sources are personal documents, primarily the memoirs of Russian political figures, military personnel, and employees of the Russian mission in Persia. Among them, it is worth highlighting the notes of the Russian Minister Plenipotentiary in Persia, Count I.O. Simonich1, the autobiography of his successor in this post A.O. Duhamel2, memoirs of a General Staff officer who took a direct part in the Herat events of 1838 I.F. Blaramberg3. We can name other sources of a memoir nature that are less significant for our work4. A feature of sources of this type is their unreliability. A subjective view of problems, personal likes and dislikes, the desire to present oneself and one’s activities in the best light, lapsus memoriae - all this characterizes memoir literature. At the same time, it is completely impossible to abandon the use of memories, since often it is memoirs that give us the most detailed, integral and complete picture of certain events. In addition, it is memoir sources, free from the formalized language of official documents, that provide information about the driving motives of certain figures, about their own ideas regarding Russia’s political goals in Iran and the means by which these goals should be achieved. The personal correspondence of employees of the foreign policy department can be characterized in a similar way5. The main requirement for

1 Simonich I.O. Memoirs of the Plenipotentiary Minister. 1832-1838 M., 1967. [Dugamel A.O.] Autobiography of A.O. Duhamel // Russian archive. M., 1885. No. 5.

3 Blaramberg I.F. Memories. M., 1978.

4 Yepish A.Kh. Siege of Herat in 1838 // Military collection. T. 249. Year 42. St. Petersburg, 1899. No. 10 (October). pp. 286-298; Sir John McNeil (From the service memoirs of B.C. Tolstoy) // Russian archive. Year 12. M., 1874. No. 4. Stlb. 884-898; Notes from A.P. Ermolova. 1798 - 1826 / Comp., prepared. text, intro. Art., comment. V.A. Fedorov. M., 1991; [Hadji-Iskender] From my official activities // Russian Archive. No. 2. M., 1897. a [Sepyavin L.G.] Letters from L.G. Senyavin to the Envoy in Tehran, Prince. DI. Dolgoruky. B.m., b.g. Using this type of sources is to check the given factual information against other sources, identifying the personal motives of their authors.

Since the beginning of the 19th century, contacts between Russia and Iran have intensified, which leads to an increase in the number of visits by Russian citizens to Persia. Of course, trips to this still mysterious country in many ways attracted the attention of Russian educated society, which led to the emergence of the genre of travel writing about Persia in literature. The value of this type of source lies in the fact that it perfectly reflects Russians’ ideas about Persia and the Persians, demonstrates (and in many ways creates) the set of stereotypes that formed the image of a typical Persian in the minds of Russians. And since the officials of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs were part of Russian society, they could not be free from the stereotypes existing in it. Thus, the image of Iran artificially created by eyewitnesses, which appeared on the pages of travel notes of Russian travelers in the East, could indirectly influence the methods and the means that the highest officials of the Empire (perhaps the emperor himself) chose to implement their plans in this state.

Among the most significant travel notes and diaries for this work are the writings of members of the Russian embassy to Iran in 1817, V. Borozdny and A.E. Sokolov, a member of the embassy of Prince. Menshikova V.A. Bartholomew, Baron F. Korf, A.D. Saltykova, N.F. Masalsky, I. Berezin, notes from members of the commission on the Iranian-Turkish delimitation (including translated ones) and a number of others1. Travel notes of British origin were of lesser importance for this work and were used as an auxiliary source2.

With the increasing interest of Russian society in Iran at the beginning of the 19th century, numerous publications appeared in the press devoted to Iran, its history, culture and modernity. These publications provide a certain cross-section of ideas formed in Russian society about Iran and Iranians, and allow us to trace the stereotypes of perception of this country that have formed in the minds of educated Russians. Already in the first third of the century, in such well-known publications as “Bulletin of Europe”, “Domestic Notes” we find articles about Iran3.

Borozdna V.] A brief summary of the journey of the Russian-Imperial embassy to Persia in 1817. Vasily Borozdny, Collegiate Assessor and the Order of St. Anne, third class, and the Order of Pereida Leo and the Sun, second class cavalier. St. Petersburg 1821; [Sokolov A.E.] Day notes about the journey of the Russian-Imperial embassy in Persia in 1816 and 1817. M. Imperial Society of Russian History and Antiquities. 1910; Bartolomey V.A. Embassy of Prince Menshikov to Persia in 1826. St. Petersburg 1904; [Korf F.] Memoirs of Persia 1834-1835. Baron Theodore Korf. St. Petersburg 1838; [Saltykov A.D.] Travel to Persia. Letters from the book A. D. Saltykova. With a portrait of Passer-Eddin-Mirza, the valiant (heir) now the Shah of Persia. M., 1849; [Masalsky N.F.] Letters from a Russian from Persia. Part 1-2. St. Petersburg, 1844; Berszin I. Travel through northern Persia. Kazan, 1852; [Chirikov E.I.] Travel journal E.I. Chirikov, Russian commissioner-mediator for the Turkish-Persian delimitation 1849-1852. St. Petersburg 1875; [M.G.] From the Bosphorus to the Persian Gulf. From notes kept during the four-year journey of the demarcation commission across Turkey and Persia. B.m., b.g.; Siyahet-name-i-hudud. Description of travel along the Turkish-Persian border / trans. Gamazov M.A. M. 1877; Ogorodnikov P. Essays on Persia. St. Petersburg, 1878; Alikhanov-Avarsky M. Visiting the Shah. Essays on Persia. Tiflis, 1898; Griboyedov A.S. Travel notes. Caucasus - Persia. Tiflis, 1932. Gibbons R. Routes in Kirman, Jebal, and Khorasan, in the Years 1831 and 1832 // The Journal of the Royal Geographical Society of London. V. 11. L., 1841; Journals of the Rev. Joseph Wolff, Missionary to the Jews // The Calcutta Christian Observer. V. 1. (June-December). Calcutta, 1832; Stocqucler J.H. Fifteen months" pilgrimage through untrodden tracts of Khuzistan and Persia, in a journey from India to England, through parts of Turkish Arabia, Persia, Armenia, Russia, and Germany. Performed in the years 1831 and 1832. In 2 vols. V.l. L., 1832 ; Wamburn A. Travel through Central Asia. M., 1867.

3 See, for example: About Persia // Bulletin of Europe, published by Vasily Zhukovsky. Part XXXX. August. No. 15. M., 1808. P. 232-264; Extract from a letter to Paris from Tehran // Bulletin of Europe, compiled by Mikhail Kachenovsky. No. 1. January. M., 1826. P. 4550; A look at the exploits of Russians in Persia in 1826 and 1827 and the actions of the Russian fleet near Navarino // Domestic Notes, published by Pavel Svinin. Part 33. St. Petersburg, 1828. pp. 168-197; Khosrev Mirza, son of Abbas Mirza, heir to the Persian throne, at the Russian court // Domestic Notes, published by Pavel Svinin. Part 39. St. Petersburg, 1829. pp. 469-491.

Subsequently, publications dedicated to this state appear on the pages of many newspapers and magazines1.

The scientific novelty of the study lies in the fact that it made the first attempt in existing historiography to comprehensively consider Russia’s policy in Iran in the 1830s - 50s. While previously the main attention of researchers was primarily drawn to the economic aspect of Russian politics, or individual episodes of aggravation of Russian-English contradictions in the Middle East (for example, the Herat crisis), the author seemed necessary to focus attention on those political (not only diplomatic) methods through which Russia achieved its goals in Iran.

The following provisions are submitted for defense:

1) As a result of the long development of Russian-Iranian relations by the first third of the 19th century. a certain political tradition was formed that determined the forms of Russian-Iranian interaction. The peace treaties concluded as a result of the Russian-Iranian wars gave political form to this tradition, allowing us to talk about the formalization of a certain concept of Russian policy in Iran.

2) The rapprochement with Iran that occurred at the beginning of the 19th century led to the formation among Russians of a set of ideas about this country and the people inhabiting it, based on the opposition “friend - foe”. At the same time, “Europeans”, that is, the British (also French, Poles, etc.), were perceived as “our own” in Iran, and Iranians were “Asians”, with changeability in behavior, flattery, deceit, etc., characteristic of the image of Asians. Based on these mental

1 See: for example: Political news: Persia // Spirit of magazines, No. 4. 1818; England in Asia // Moskvitian, a magazine published by M. Pogodin. M., 1842. S. 654-657; [Berezin I.] Another world. Seaside city // Russian Bulletin - T. 10, May. - M., 1857. Economic news about trade with Asia was published in the Journal of Manufactures and Trade. See, for example: On the permission of duty-free export of linen to the Asian possessions // Journal of Manufactures and Trade. Part 4. St. Petersburg, 1846. P. 13-14; About trade in Tabriz in 1845 // Journal of Manufactures and Trade. Part 3. St. Petersburg, 1846. P. 114-172; About trade in Trebizond in 1845 // Journal of Manufactures and Trade. Part 3. St. Petersburg, 1846. pp. 173-184. constructions, Russian diplomats also used certain methods of political practice.

The main political line of Russia in Iran in 1829-1854. there was a consistent implementation of the provisions of the Turkmanchay Treaty in accordance with its letter and spirit.

An important problem of Russian policy in Iran is the problem of borders. If the Russian-Iranian border in Transcaucasia was determined by the terms of the Turkmanchay Treaty, and after its ratification it only had to be protected, then the problem of the northeastern border of Iran was very acute for Russia in connection with its own plans in this region.

Russian participation in the Herat conflict of 1837-1838. allowed her to strengthen her position in Iran, regardless of the fact that the Shah was forced to lift the siege of Herat under British pressure. In the 1830-1840s. In the 19th century, a new form of interaction appeared between Russia and Iran, namely, cooperation in the military sphere, which became especially intense after the resolution (during the Herat crisis) of the issue of Russian deserters in Persia. After the conclusion of the Turkmanchay Treaty, Russia began intensive development of the Caspian Sea, which was reflected in the establishment of regular shipping, the creation of a sea station in the Astrabad Bay, and the conduct of military patrols. One of Russia’s goals in this regard is to strengthen its military-political influence in Iran.

Russia used various political techniques in Iran depending on the internal political situation and external conditions. In crisis situations, such as a change of monarch, military-political actions of Iran, Russia intensified its policy to strengthen its positions. During calm periods, Russia used mainly those means of strengthening its influence that were provided for by the Turkmanchay Treaty.

The structure of the study is built in accordance with the purpose and objectives of the work. The dissertation consists of an introduction, two chapters, a conclusion, a list of used sources and literature. The paragraphs of the first chapter are highlighted according to the problem principle, the paragraphs of the second - according to the problem-chronological principle.

CONCLUSION

Russian policy in Iran in 1829-1854. was distinguished by a number of important features that make it possible to distinguish the corresponding period as an independent stage in the development of Russian-Iranian relations.

The Russian political line in the period following the conclusion of the Turkmanchay Peace Treaty of 1828 was based on the entire previous experience of Russian relations with the Iranian state. It must be said that this experience was very long and constructive. The tradition of political ties between Russia and Iran, established back in the 16th century, implied peaceful, friendly relations between them, conditioned by common economic (and sometimes political) goals. However, in the 18th century, important changes took place in the political picture of the region, as a result of which a number of adjustments were made to Russian-Iranian relations. These changes are connected, on the one hand, with the activities of Peter I, under whom Russia was proclaimed an Empire and adopted the European civilizational model. At the same time, there was a serious strengthening of Russia's foreign policy position, as well as the development of its military and economic potential. At the same time, Iran in the 18th century was experiencing a political crisis, due to which, by the beginning of the 19th century, a situation had developed that determined the development of Russian-Iranian relations until 1917. Namely: Russia, which had significant military-political potential, played a leading role in Russian-Iranian relations. This primacy of Russia, in the perception of the political elite, was explained by the superiority of the European tradition over the Asian one.

Close acquaintance with Iran associated with Russia's advancement in

The Caucasus and Transcaucasia, and the two Russian-Iranian wars that followed in the first third of the 19th century, led to important consequences. On the one hand, the above-mentioned military-political dominance of Russia was consolidated. One of the results of the wars was the realization by the Qajar elite of the futility of further military enterprises,

245 directed against Russia. At the same time, Russia became convinced of Iran's internal weakness. On the other hand, the close acquaintance of Russian people with Iran gave rise to the emergence of certain stereotypes of perception of Iran and Iranians, which were reproduced on the pages of numerous travel notes written by Russian travelers, diplomats, and scientists who visited Iran. The basis for these stereotypes was the opposition between “Europeans” and “Asians”, within which Russians were perceived as Europeans. These descriptions are characterized by a typically Orientalist view of Iran, characterizing Iranians as “strangers,” people unequal to Europeans. Accordingly, for the most adequate behavior in Iran, a person had to perceive a certain scheme that made it possible to build internal connections in Iranian society. This scheme was proposed in finished form by the authors of numerous descriptions of Persia, who continued the European tradition of describing this country, with which Russian educated people were well familiar. This scheme assumed the presence of certain characteristic features of Iranians, such as unreliability, love of money, etc. Members of the ruling house, as well as the political system of Qajar Persia, were also characterized using appropriate stereotypes.

These stereotypes had both indirect and direct influence on the formation of Russian policy in Iran. We can say this because the people directly responsible for Russian policy in Iran, judging by the documents belonging to them, were also in the grip of similar stereotypes. Moreover, we find appeals to persistent stereotypes of perception of Iranians even in diplomatic correspondence, in particular, in instructions to Russian representatives in Iran.

By the end of the 1820s, one of the most important stereotypes of perception became. an idea of ​​the internal weakness of the Qajar state and its inability to develop independently. In the minds of the Russian political elite, Iran has lost its role as a subject of international relations, increasingly turning into their object. This allowed Russia

246 to enter into negotiations with England, the essence of which was, in fact, to establish mutual patronage over Persia. However, it should be noted that Russia did not encroach on the sovereignty of Iran: all necessary diplomatic formalities were always observed, and Iran was not the object of direct interference, such as, for example, the khanates of Central Asia in the second half of the 19th century. This was due to two reasons. On the one hand, by the confrontation with England, which could not allow Russia to directly interfere in the affairs of Iran, on the other hand, by Nicholas’s commitment to the principles of legitimism, which did not allow encroaching on the ancient statehood of Eranshahr.

The main goal of Russian policy in Iran in the 19th century was trade with this country, as well as transit trade through Iranian lands. All other goals of the Russian government, including political ones, were ultimately subordinated to this main goal. Russia perceived Iran as a promising market for its industrial products, which is why we observe a clear desire of the Russian government to ensure Russia’s trade interests, which was expressed, in particular, in the inclusion of a special Act on Trade in the Turkmanchay Treaty. The government of the Empire was looking for various ways to develop trade, both directly provided for by the Turkmanchay Treaty (establishment of consulates) and alternative ones (establishment of the Astrabad Trading House, patronage of the Russian merchants).

Thus, by the 1830s, a certain concept of Russian policy in Iran was emerging, the implementation of which made it possible to optimally solve Russia’s own economic problems in this country. This concept assumed the existence of Iran as a single, but weak state, as dependent as possible on Russia, which was supposed to act as the patron of Iran, the guardian of its interests, thus displacing Great Britain from this position.

The implementation of this concept involved the use of a significant arsenal of actual political techniques, which the government of the Empire used depending on the current

247 political situation. The last one, after the end of the Russian-Iranian war of 1826-1828. turned out very favorably for Russia.

The Qajars' awareness of the futility of further confrontation with the Empire leads to a rapprochement between Russia and Iran. It became especially noticeable after the establishment of Mohammad Shah on the throne, who sought to rely on Russia in carrying out his military-political actions. For Russia, the current situation provided many opportunities to strengthen its influence. Russia acts as a guarantor of the Iranian succession to the throne, the preservation of power over Iran in the hands of representatives of the Azerbaijani house. It consistently supports Mohammad Shah and then Nasser al-Din Shah, which makes Russia an important factor in Iranian political life.

In addition, after the conclusion of the Turkmanchay Treaty, a new direction of Russian-Iranian cooperation appears, namely, cooperation in the military sphere. It was expressed in the fact that Russia supported Iran in its military actions, or independently used military force to ensure Russian and Iranian interests. An important form of Russian-Iranian cooperation in the 30-40s. In the 19th century, military instructors were sent to Iran. The beginning of this practice was laid by the mission of Baron Asha in Khorasan in 1831-1832, and this direction of Russian-Iranian military cooperation reached its peak during the Herat crisis of 1837-1838. During this crisis, the decision to withdraw a battalion of Russian deserters from Iran played an important role in the development of Russian-Iranian military cooperation. Thus, Russia sought to deprive England of its monopoly on the training of Iranian troops. The intensification of Russian-Iranian military cooperation was also due to the fact that the main political interests of Russia and Iran in the period under review coincided in most areas, while, on the contrary, there were contradictions between Iran and England.

In addition to the military sphere, Russia also provided Iran with support in the implementation of other modernization projects, which was associated with its desire to strengthen its influence in Iran.

It is important to note that the period 1829-1854. was not homogeneous. It included both years of aggravation of international contradictions in the Middle East, and years of calm. Meanwhile, even in the calm years, Russia continued to solve its foreign policy problems in Iran related to the implementation of the articles of the Turkmanchay Treaty, as well as those aimed at streamlining relations with Iran: the introduction of regular postal services, consulates, the issue of a house for the Russian mission, etc. This ongoing work of Russian diplomats often remains without due attention, while it was precisely this that made Russian-Iranian relations stable and more predictable.

An important role in the implementation of Russian policy was the correct selection of diplomats to serve in Iran. This issue was resolved depending on what line the government intended to follow in Iran at any given time. The following trend can be observed. When the political situation in the Middle East was aggravated, and it was necessary to fight to strengthen Russian influence in Iran as opposed to England, the government appointed active people prone to active and even sometimes aggressive policies (like Count Simonich) to the post of plenipotentiary minister. At the same time, during those periods of time when it was necessary to pursue a cautious political line and, without getting involved in adventures, to work on the implementation of the current tasks of Russian politics, people of the opposite type were appointed to this position.

In addition, the government also developed general principles for selecting diplomats for service in Persia, based on the peculiarities of life in this country. The Russian diplomat had to be an unpretentious person, capable of enduring the peculiarities of Persian life and existing in Iranian society, which was very different from Russian both culturally and religiously. Thus, the methods of Russian policy in Iran in the 30-50s. XIX century were very diverse and successfully

249 were used by the Russian government to implement its objectives in the Middle East.

It can be stated that Russian policy in Iran during the period under review was very successful. Russia managed to achieve a change in the nature of Russian-Iranian relations. Using the provisions of the Turkmanchay Treaty, Russia is strengthening its southern and southeastern borders. The border in Transcaucasia was fixed, no longer so much dividing two hostile states as ensuring order on the borders of two friendly ones. The approval of the Russian flag in the southern Caspian, in addition to maritime dominance itself, made it possible to lay the foundation for resolving the issue of Iran’s border east of the Caspian Sea. Together with the strengthening of naval positions, this in the future served as the basis for Russian advance in Central Asia. Overall, Russia has become much closer to Iran. The rapprochement of the two states can be traced through such phenomena as attempts to establish overland postal communication, the introduction of regular shipping, etc. All these facts together give reason to believe that it was during this era that the foundations were laid for Russia’s political and economic dominance in the region, which became so noticeable at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries.

A definite result of this period of development of Russian-Iranian relations was 1854, when the Convention on the Neutrality of Iran in the Eastern War was concluded. Of course, this convention was not a full-fledged union agreement between Russia and Iran (although there were long negotiations about the union). An obstacle to concluding an alliance was the persistence of some mutual distrust on both the Russian and Iranian sides. At the same time, this convention was a significant achievement on the path to constructive mutually beneficial cooperation between Russia and Iran, which greatly distinguishes this time from the first third of the century, a time of mutual claims and armed conflicts.

1. Archival sources

2. Archive of Foreign Policy of the Russian Empire (AVPRI)

3. F. “St. Petersburg Main Archive. 1-1" On. 7811.1. D. 69, 70,71,72, 78,81

4. F. “St. Petersburg Main Archive. 1-6" Op. 5. 1836

5. D. 2. “The case of the arrival of the Kabul envoy Huseyn Ali to St. Petersburg, and then the dispatch of Lieutenant Vitkevich to Kabul to enter into immediate relations with Afghanistan”

6. F. 194. “Mission in Persia” Op.528/1 (528 “a”). 1809-1913

7. D. 131, 166, 168, 179, 184, 259, 2004, 2006, 2014, 2033.

8. Russian State Military Historical Archive (RGVIA)1. F. 446 “Persia”

9. Op.1. D. 6, 26, 28, 29, 168, 352, 360, 363.

10. The cases of this inventory used in the dissertation simultaneously go through inventory No. 13, which is a documentary one. For convenience, in the text the reference to the case is given according to inventory No. 781, while the number of the document used according to inventory No. 13 is additionally indicated in parentheses.

12. Acts relating to the conclusion of peace with Persia. St. Petersburg, 1828.

13. Rules for the leadership of the Russian Mission and Consulates in Persia regarding trade and protection of Russian citizens staying there. B.m., b.g.

14. Complete collection of laws of the Russian Empire. First meeting. T.XXXVIT. 1820-1821. St. Petersburg, 1830. No. 28771. pp. 871-872. Second meeting. T. IV. 1829. St. Petersburg, 1830. No. 2606. P. 32-42; T. XIX. Section one. 1844. St. Petersburg, 1845. No. 18247. P. 589-590.

15. Collection of treaties, conventions and other acts concluded by Russia with the European and Asian Powers, as well as with the North American United States. St. Petersburg, 1845.

16. Yuzefovich T. Treaties between Russia and the East. Political and trade. M., 2005.

17. Aitchison S.U. A collection of treaties, engagements and sanads relating to India and neighboring countries. Calcutta, 1892. Vol. X.

18. Hertslet E. Treaties &c, concluded between Great Britain and Persia, and between Persia and other foreign Powers wholly or partially in force on the 1st April, 1891. L., 1891.

19. Office materials

20. Acts collected by the Caucasian Archaeographic Commission / ed. A.P. Berger. In 12 volumes. Tiflis, 1866-1904.

21. Albrant L.L. Captain Albrant's business trip to Persia in 1838, told by himself // Russian Bulletin. M., 1867. T. 68. P. 304-340.

22. Blaramberg I.F. The siege of the city of Herat, undertaken by the Persian army under the leadership of Magomed Shah, in 1837 and 1838 // Collection of geographical, topographical and statistical materials on Asia. St. Petersburg, 1885. Issue. 16. P. 1-40.

23. Foreign policy of Russia in the 19th and early 20th centuries. T. 1-17. M., 1960-2005.

24. Dispatch from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Empire Nesselrode to the Russian Ambassador to England Pozzo di Borgo // Simonich I.O. Memoirs of the Plenipotentiary Minister. 1832-1838 M., 1967. S. 164-175.

25. I.A. Envoys from Afghanistan to Russia in 1833-1836. // Russian antiquity. 1880, T. 28, pp. 784-791.

26. From the dispatch of the envoy in Tehran Dolgoruky to the Minister of Foreign Affairs Nesselrode No. 80, October 10, 1849 // Ivanov M.S. Antifeudal uprisings in Iran in the mid-19th century. M., 1982. S. 217-219.

27. The mission of Captain Nikiforov to Khiva and the actions of detachments sent to the Kyrgyz steppe from the Siberian and Orenburg lines to pacify Kenisary Kasymov and other rebels // Collection of materials for the Turkestan region. Volume III. 1841 Tashkent, 1912.

28. Accession of Kazakhstan and Central Asia to Russia (XVIII-XIX centuries) Documents / comp. NOT. Bekmakhanova. M., 2008.

29. Russian-Turkmen relations in the XVIII-XIX centuries. (before Turkmenistan joined Russia). Collection of archival documents. Ashgabat, 1963.

30. Affairs of Circassia, Persia, and Turkey//The Portfolio; a collection of state papers, and other documents and correspondence, historical, diplomatic, and commercial. L., 1836. Vol. 4. P. 369-380.

31. British and foreign state papers. 1838-1839. V.XXVII. L., 1856.

32. Charges against Lord Viscount Palmerston. Proceedings on the motion of Thomas Chisholm Anstey, Esq. (M.P. for Youghal). Extracted from Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, 1848.

33. Cities & Trade: Consul Abbott on the Economy and Society of Iran 18471866 / ed. Abbas Amanat. Ithaca Press. London, 1983.

34. Correspondence relating to Persia and Afghanistan. Presented to both Houses of Parliament by command of Her Magesty. L., 1839.

35. Rodkey F.S. Conversations on Anglo-Russian Relations in 1838 // The English Historical Review, Vol. 50, No. 197 (Jan., 1935), pp. 120-123.3. Statistical materials

36. Blaramberg I.F. Statistical Review of Persia, compiled by Lieutenant Colonel I.F. Blaramberg in 1841 // Notes of the Imperial Russian Geographical Society. St. Petersburg, 1853, Book. 7.

37. Herat (From Meyer’s lexicon of 1876) // Collection of geographical, topographical and statistical materials on Asia. St. Petersburg, 1885. Issue. 16. pp. 54-58.

38. Herat: granary and garden of Central Asia. Essay by Colonel Malleson // Collection of geographical, topographical and statistical materials on Asia. St. Petersburg, 1885. Issue. 16. pp. 58-87.

39. Seydlitz N. Essay on South Caspian ports and trade // Russian Bulletin. T. LXX. 1867 (August). pp. 479-521.

40. Melgunov G. About the southern coast of the Caspian Sea. Appendix to volume III of the notes of Imp. Academy of Sciences. No. 5. St. Petersburg, 1863.

41. Information about Herat // Collection of geographical, topographical and statistical materials on Asia. St. Petersburg, 1885. Issue. 16. pp. 41-43.

42. Notice of the Port of Redout-Kali, and Statement of the Nature and Value of the Exports from Russia to Asia in the year 1827 // The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland. V. 1. London, 1834.33