Pobozhye at the 2nd half 15th century
Nicholas Zharkikh
Government officials in Pobozhye
| Person | Title | Years of government | Details |
| Swynka | Bratslav starosta | 1420s | Invented in the 16th century, he did not actually exist. More details |
| Abraham | Zvenigorod starosta | 1420s | Invented in the 16th century, it did not actually exist. More details |
| Prince Fedko Nesvitsky | Kremenets and Bratslav starosta | [1434, 1435] | Was in Bratslav in 1432. More details |
| Derslaw Wlostowski | Podillja starosta | [1436] | He had never been to Bratslav. More details |
| Monyvyd | Kremenets and Podillja starosta | 1437 – 1348 | In literature, he is mistakenly considered the Bratslav starosta. More details |
| Prince Vasyl Sangushkovich | Bratslav owner | [1443 – 1445] | Invented in the early 18th century, he did not actually exist. More details |
| Jursha | – | [1448] | He was in Bratslav in 1448, but did not have the "Bratslav" title. More details |
| Prince Mikhail Vasilyevich Chortoryisky | – | 1463 – 1478 | He was in Bratslav in 1463, 1474, and 1478, but did not have the "Bratslav" title. More details |
| Bogdan Sakovich | Braslav governor | 1473 | In literature, he was mistakenly considered the governor of Bratslav. More details |
| Prince Andrew | Bratslav governor | 1489 | more details |
| Kmita | Vinnytsia governor | February 24, 1489 | more details |
| Byk Oleksandrovych | Vinnytsia governor | November 29, 1489; January 24, 1494 | more details |
| Prince Fedor Ivanovich Chetvertynsky | Governor of Bratslav and Zvenigorod | 1494 | more details |
| Prince Konstantin Ivanovich Ostrozky | Governor of Bratslav, Zvenigorod and Vinnytsia | 1498 – 1500 | He had never been to Bratslav, nor in Zvenigorod or Vinnytsia. More details |
| Prince Andrew Alexandrovich Sangushko | Governor of Bratslav and Vinnytsia | 1501 | More details |
| Prince Mikhail Vasilyevich Zbarazhsky | Bratslav governor | August – October 1507 | more details |
| Prince Konstantin Ivanovich Ostrozky | Starosta of Lutsk, Bratslav and Vinnytsia | from November 1507 | more details |
Conclusions
1. From the Tatars point of view, in particular, the Crimean Khanate, Pobozhye at that time was part of the "Tatar border" – a territory where the Tatars felt completely free, feared nothing, plundered and captured wherever and whenever they wanted.
2. From the Polish point of view, Pobozhye at that time was a passage yard for Tatar attacks on that part of modern Ukraine that was in Polish possession. Pobozhye was of no interest or value to the Poles.
3. From the point of view of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Pobozhye was a "suitcase without a handle": Lithuania had neither the ability nor the desire to protect this territory from the Tatars, nor to organize power and public life here.
4. The management of Pobozhye went through three stages:
4.1. Direct rule of Grand Duke Casimir (approximately until 1455), which was expressed in the granting of lands in Pobozhye to local landowners.
4.2. The rule of the Kyiv prince Semen Olelkovich (1455 (?) – 1471), which was reflected in the grant for Jeremiah Shashko (1459) and some indirect data.
4.3. After the death of Prince Semen, Pobozhye returned to the sphere of direct administration of Casimir, which was reflected in the description of the Vinnytsia Castle in the 1470s and the salary of the Grand Duke for local landowners, which was paid from the revenues of Volhynia and Kyiv. Pobozhye had no own sources of income at that time.
5. In 1489, mentions of the Bratslav and Vinnytsia governors appear, which marks the beginning of the formation of two administrative units (episodically called starostva) in Pobozhye.
6. The southern border of the colonization zone on Pobozhye had already moved 50 km north in the middle of the 15th century compared to the end of the 14th century.
7. The names of local landowners belong to the Orthodox Christian nomenclature, which indicates their origin from the Ruthenians. Occasionally, there are interspersed distinctly Polish names (Jan, Stanislav). Names of Lithuanian ethnic origin have yet to be identified. On the other hand, the complete absence of Tatar names is quite striking – contrary to the widespread view in the literature that such names made up almost a quarter of the landowners.