Breaking the Chains: The Role of Russian Captives in the Occupation and Abolition of Slavery in Turkestan

One of the most striking dimensions of the Russian Empire's expansionist policies towards the Turkestan region was the discursive and strategic framework constructed around the practice of slavery. Throughout the long-term process extending from the 16th century to the late 19th century, the issue of Russian captives held in the Khanates of Bukhara and Khiva consistently occupied a central position in the agenda of the Russians. However, diplomatic negotiations concerning prisoner exchanges or the release of captives largely failed, paving the way for Russia to activate military options. Russia’s military intervention in Turkestan was legitimized through a discourse that portrayed the Tsarist ideology and the imperial rhetoric of the period as committed to the abolition of slavery. Nevertheless, archival documents, travel accounts, and contemporary testimonies reveal that this discourse was largely based on political manipulation. Although slavery was officially abolished following the Russian domination of the Khanate of Khiva in 1873, it is evident that the slave trade and practices of captivity in the region continued for some time. For the khanates, the existence of Russian captives was not merely a matter of war booty; rather, it functioned as a strategic instrument providing negotiating superiority against Russia. This situation transformed the phenomenon of captivity from a mere economic activity into a crucial component of politics and diplomacy. On the other hand, for Russia, this issue was positioned at the very center of the argument of “humanitarian intervention” that justified its policy of conquest in Central Asia; yet in practice, it became clear that the primary motivation of this intervention did not go beyond the liberation of Russian captives. Russia did not aim for a profound transformation of the social and economic infrastructure of slavery in the region, a fact that became evident in its colonial practices. The role of the Turkmen groups in the slave trade constituted another complex dimension of this process. The entanglement of ethnic, sectarian, and economic factors in this structure not only shaped Russo-Turkestan relations but also formed an essential part of the internal dynamics between the khanates. Ultimately, the abolition of slavery in Turkestan was not so much the direct result of Russian intervention as it was the consequence of local resistance movements, internal rebellions, and broader processes of social transformation. The strategy of the Tsarist administration to present itself as a “liberator” was essentially a discursive construction that masked its imperial expansion. In this context, the question of slavery evolved into an ideological apparatus skillfully designed by Russia to legitimize its military and political expansion in Central Asia, becoming a striking example of the classical tension between imperial politics and humanitarian rhetoric.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Marmara Türkiyat araştırmaları dergisi
Published
2025-06-16
DOI
https://doi.org/10.16985/mtad.1660026
Primary Topic
Soviet and Russian History
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Breaking the Chains: The Role of Russian Captives in the Occupation and Abolition of Slavery in Turkestan

Mesut Karakulak
Marmara Türkiyat araştırmaları dergisi
Soviet and Russian History
article

Breaking the Chains: The Role of Russian Captives in the Occupation and Abolition of Slavery in Turkestan

Mesut Karakulak
article en

Abstract

One of the most striking dimensions of the Russian Empire's expansionist policies towards the Turkestan region was the discursive and strategic framework constructed around the practice of slavery. Throughout the long-term process extending from the 16th century to the late 19th century, the issue of Russian captives held in the Khanates of Bukhara and Khiva consistently occupied a central position in the agenda of the Russians. However, diplomatic negotiations concerning prisoner exchanges or the release of captives largely failed, paving the way for Russia to activate military options. Russia’s military intervention in Turkestan was legitimized through a discourse that portrayed the Tsarist ideology and the imperial rhetoric of the period as committed to the abolition of slavery. Nevertheless, archival documents, travel accounts, and contemporary testimonies reveal that this discourse was largely based on political manipulation. Although slavery was officially abolished following the Russian domination of the Khanate of Khiva in 1873, it is evident that the slave trade and practices of captivity in the region continued for some time. For the khanates, the existence of Russian captives was not merely a matter of war booty; rather, it functioned as a strategic instrument providing negotiating superiority against Russia. This situation transformed the phenomenon of captivity from a mere economic activity into a crucial component of politics and diplomacy. On the other hand, for Russia, this issue was positioned at the very center of the argument of “humanitarian intervention” that justified its policy of conquest in Central Asia; yet in practice, it became clear that the primary motivation of this intervention did not go beyond the liberation of Russian captives. Russia did not aim for a profound transformation of the social and economic infrastructure of slavery in the region, a fact that became evident in its colonial practices. The role of the Turkmen groups in the slave trade constituted another complex dimension of this process. The entanglement of ethnic, sectarian, and economic factors in this structure not only shaped Russo-Turkestan relations but also formed an essential part of the internal dynamics between the khanates. Ultimately, the abolition of slavery in Turkestan was not so much the direct result of Russian intervention as it was the consequence of local resistance movements, internal rebellions, and broader processes of social transformation. The strategy of the Tsarist administration to present itself as a “liberator” was essentially a discursive construction that masked its imperial expansion. In this context, the question of slavery evolved into an ideological apparatus skillfully designed by Russia to legitimize its military and political expansion in Central Asia, becoming a striking example of the classical tension between imperial politics and humanitarian rhetoric.

Marmara Türkiyat araştırmaları dergisiVol. 12(1)
Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli University (TR)
Openalex Percentile: Top 84%
Soviet and Russian History
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.