Fortified fortress in the city center. Fortresses of Russia: list

This article begins the description of our new travels in America. In general, I did not think that we would get together again this far, but my husband retired, and from having nothing to do, he suddenly became attracted to distant wanderings. And since we have not yet run out of a visa to the United States, we decided to use the opportunity to ride without hindrance, besides, Ksyusha supported us. So, it took almost a day to get from Almaty to Los Angeles: 6 hours to Istanbul and more than 13 hours from Istanbul to Los Angeles, plus the transfer took 2.5 hours. To relieve stress from such a long flight, I would like to communicate with nature, but so that it does not take long to get to it.

To begin with, all over the world (including, oddly enough, even) brown signs mean some sites of interest to tourists - natural and cultural attractions, museums, historical monuments. But not in the Review. There is practically nothing to look at in the Review, so absolutely all available pointers are brown here. Of the new ones anyway. (Everything that really should be brown pointers is listed in the note)

Well, I thought that I had finished with travels in Germany, but it turns out that there are still many impressions left in my thoughts and in photographs. And recently Ksyusha recalled one short trip to the village of Pekhau. Now it is not a village, but a part of Magdeburg, one of its districts, and it is located 5 km from Altstadt on the right bank of the Elbe, between the Old Elbe and the Ele River. We went there already at the end of the day, just for a walk, but here too it has its own sights and its own history. Pechau was first mentioned in written sources in 948 as "Pechovi" (from Slovak - oven, hearth, and from Proto-Slavic - anxiety). At that time, the Elbe River served as the border between the Holy Roman Empire of the German nation and the Slavic Morzan tribes. The old village of Pehau is attributed to the Morzan ring fortification. With the coming to

Immediately for June 22, I will publish the third part of the book about the Monument to the Soviet Soldier-Liberator in Treptower Park. The previous two parts were about, and about. This part will be about the construction process.

Before the project became reality ...

An order was given - and the work began to boil

On June 4, 1947, Marshal of the Soviet Union V.D.Sokolovsky, Commander-in-Chief of the Group of Soviet Occupation Forces in Germany, issued Order No. 139, which ordered the construction of monuments to Soviet soldiers in the Berlin districts of Treptow and Pankow-Schönholz.

Tickets to the UAE for the May holidays were bought in the form of a voucher along with accommodation in Sharjah on the first line and half board. It came out about 500 bucks per person. The Fly Dubai flight is considered a low-cost airline, although luggage of 20 kg per person is included in the ticket. This year, at this time, just started Oraza - the Muslim fast in the holy month of Ramadan. At this time, prices fall, and life in the Emirates almost freezes.

This introductory story will be about traveling back and forth.

A little about the Almaty airport. There is a smoking-room - it was carried down the stairs and made almost on the street behind bars. There are no pointers to her from the waiting room. A bar with beer for 3500 tenge remained, but a bar with the same beer for 1200 tenge appeared right next to it. Comfortable

Since Fly Dubai is an inexpensive company - they are taken to the planes by bus. And Air Astana fits into the sleeve.

Honfleur was the last city on our journey through northwestern France. It is located in the Normandy region at the mouth of the Seine. For the first time in written sources it is mentioned in 1027 as the possession of the Norman duke Richard III. Until the 16th century, Honfleur was a major port, through which trade with England went, and from here pirates ravaged the English coast. But over time, Honfleur harbor began to silt up and ships with a large draft had to wait for the tide to get into the port, King Francis I in 1517 decided to build a new port on the shores of the English Channel - Le Havre. The economic significance of Honfleur as a port has been very low since then.

I will continue to publish a book about the Monument to the Soviet Soldier-Liberator in Berlin. The first part was published earlier - vol. This part is about the memorial itself and about the war.

An ensemble of extraordinary expressive power

And now we invite you to visit the memorial ensemble and get to know it more closely, both as a whole and with its individual elements, looking at it through the eyes of the sculptor E.V. Vuchetich.

“On both sides, the territory is limited by transport arteries: Pushkinaley and Am Treptover parkstrasse. Surrounded by a wall of mighty century-old plane trees, the future monument was completely isolated from this area of Berlin with its architecture, and this freed us from having to reckon with it. Entering the park, a person is disconnected from city life and completely falls under the influence of the monument.

Just a bunch of pictures from the city. Not the most interesting, but I think they are quite beautiful and they reflect almost all the architectural aspects of this small resort town with a long, but almost extinct history.

The first thing that catches your eye at the entrance to the city of Obzor from the side of Varna is the burnt-out skeleton of the bus, which, they say, has been standing here for a long time. And it immediately begins to seem that there is some kind of post-apocalypse. But in fact, a very nice Balkan town. Well, of course, it's a little spoiled by the XXI century and the tourism business, but you can also find here the Bulgarian tradition.

Blogger Georgy Malets writes:

Derbent is the most ancient city of the Russian Federation. It is located in Dagestan, on the shores of the Caspian Sea. Historians suggest that its age is at least 5 thousand years, although the exact date of the city's foundation is unknown. The main attraction of the city is the Derbent Fortress.

In ancient times, Derbent was located in the most strategically vulnerable place of the Caspian Passage, where the mountains of the Greater Caucasus come closest to the sea, leaving only a narrow three-kilometer strip of plain. The Citadel occupies the top of the hill closest to the sea.

The path along the coast was blocked by two fortress walls, adjoining the citadel in the west, and going into the sea in the east, preventing the passage of the fortress by water. The city of Derbent was located between these walls.

The length of the walls within the city is 3.6 kilometers. The northern and southern walls were built parallel to each other, the distance between them ranges from 300 to 400 meters.

The sea wall blocked the entrance to the city from the Caspian Sea. In the water, the wall continued for almost half a kilometer.

The Citadel rises on top of a 300-meter steep hill. The steep slopes reliably protected it from the invasion of enemies from the east and north.

During the excavations, ancient graves were found.

Within the walls of the fortified defensive complex there were several small, but very strong gates, through which in ancient times one could get to Derbent. The gates were opened for guests, allies and merchants.

The modern name of the city of Derbent appears in written sources since the 7th century and means "locked gates" in Persian.

The massive walls that surrounded the settlement on all sides were a reliable defense against conquerors.

The fortress in the vicinity of Derbent was built to protect the peoples inhabiting Asia Minor and Transcaucasia from the destructive invasions of northern nomads.

Historians have not been able to find out who built the Derbent fortress. There are many legends: from the fire-breathing giants who inhabited the earth before the appearance of mankind, to its foundation by Alexander the Great.

Ancient structures were built during the reign of the Sassanid dynasty.

Zindan is a cone-shaped pit for prisoners so that prisoners cannot get up.

In our time, a partial reconstruction of the fortress was carried out, but it seems to me that this was done not very carefully. In some places, frankly new stones and tiles are noticeable, vases for flowers, new lanterns are randomly placed, wires are roughly hanging.

True, it is good that no one came up with the idea to install fences on the inner side of the fortress wall so that "tourists do not fall down." It looks much more natural, and no one falls off the wall anyway.

The Naryn-Kala citadel stretches along the city for 700 meters.

Within the walls of the citadel there are many tower-like protrusions, located at a distance of 25-35 meters.

The southern part of the fortress is equipped with steps, and platforms are located on its wide walls.

In some places the passages along the wall are very narrow, you have to walk sideways.

The walls are sometimes 3.5 meters thick and 20 meters high.

The city did not have the most advantageous strategic position and was vulnerable from the side of the Caucasus Mountains and the sea, so the local population paid special attention to its strengthening.

Inside the citadel, there are ancient khan's baths with windows in the roofs, as well as buildings that have survived to our time.

Two stone water tanks located inside the citadel were built in the 11th century by Byzantine craftsmen. The tanks contained large reserves of water, which allowed the fortress to withstand the long-term siege of the city by the invaders.

In ancient times, a bathhouse was located here. Of course, the interior rooms used to look completely different: there were beautiful walls and floors, and a unique steam supply system.

It is interesting that now all the internal structures of the citadel are literally underground. Over the long years of the existence of the fortress, a lot of rock was brought inside, under which, over time, city buildings appeared.

The citadel served not only defensively, but also administrative center cities. It housed the office, the trial court and the underground prison, from which it was impossible for the prisoner to get out.

One of the ancient buildings was a cross-domed church of the 5th century, later converted into a Muslim religious institution.

There is even a theory about the existence in ancient times in Eurasia of a continuous fortification line that divided the continent in half.

The steep slopes of the citadel reliably protected it from the invasion of enemies from the east and north.

An excellent view of Derbent opens up from above.

Placement in the RusArch library: 2006

P.A. Rappoport

Ancient Russian fortresses

INTRODUCTION

During the Middle Ages, the construction of fortifications was a prominent branch of architecture. It couldn't have been otherwise! After all, the existence of a significant part of the population depended on this. Clashes between the armies of individual feudal lords were at that time an everyday, common occurrence. The danger threatened the population of villages and cities not only during the invasion of foreign troops, but also when there was no "official" war, not only in the border regions, but also in the central parts of the country. Military action was seldom on a large scale then; they, as a rule, involved very small armies, but these military operations took place almost continuously, and the life of the civilian population was constantly under threat.

That is why fortifications acquired such great importance in the Middle Ages. The very social position of the feudal lord as a representative of the ruling class was determined by the fact that he owned not only land, but also a fortified castle, which allowed him to subjugate the surrounding population and not be afraid of clashes with the troops of neighboring feudal lords. The castle is at the same time the dwelling of a feudal lord and a fortress - one of the most characteristic phenomena of the feudal era. But the fortifications were built not only by individual feudal lords. Powerful fortresses were built by the central government of the early feudal state; they also defended all medieval cities.

A similar picture, although in completely different forms, is characteristic not only of the European, but also of the Eastern Middle Ages. So it was in Russia. Word city in the Old Russian language meant a fortified settlement, in contrast to weigh or villages - an unfortified village. therefore city they called any fortified place, both a city in the socio-economic sense of the word, and a fortress itself or a feudal castle, a fortified boyar or princely estate. Everything that was surrounded by a fortress wall was considered city ... Moreover, up to the 17th century. this word was often used to refer to the defensive walls themselves.

In ancient Russian written sources, especially in the annals, there is a huge number of references to the siege and defense of fortified points and the construction of fortifications - cities ... There is no doubt that they played a very important role in the history of the Russian people. And it is quite natural that the interest of historians in the ancient Russian fortifications manifested itself very early. In 1858, the first volume of F. Laskovsky's work "Materials for the history of engineering art in Russia" was published - the first attempt at a general overview of the history of ancient Russian military engineering art. This work for its time was carried out at a high scientific level. The author made extensive use of written sources and a large amount of graphic material from the military engineering archives. It seemed that in subsequent works the history of the ancient Russian military engineering art should have received an even more detailed and vivid development. However, all the authors who wrote on this topic in the second half of the 19th and even in the first half of the 20th century, basically only repeated the conclusions of F. Laskovsky. His work thus proved unsurpassed by new research for almost a century. This is due to the fact that F. Laskovsky used written sources with great completeness. Since then, their fund has grown marginally; material sources, archaeological, as a rule, were not used in research.

Meanwhile, the main source for the study of Old Russian fortifications should be the very remnants of these fortifications - the fortifications. Military historians did not take them into account at all, and archaeologists who studied the settlements considered them only as the remains of ancient settlements, having little interest in military engineering structures.

To study the history of ancient Russian military engineering art, it was necessary to combine a thorough analysis of written sources with an archaeological and historical-architectural study of the remains of ancient Russian defensive structures to solve common military-historical problems. This task was first formulated at an archaeological meeting in Moscow, held in 1945. Since then, archaeologists have excavated the most important monuments of ancient Russian military architecture, such as the fortifications of Kiev, Moscow, Vladimir, Novgorod, etc .; examined a significant part of the ancient Russian settlements and on some of them found out the structures of defensive ramparts. On the basis of Marxist methodology, it was possible to link the development of ancient Russian serfdom with general historical processes and social changes in the life of the Russian people.

Of course, many of the most important monuments of ancient Russian military architecture have not yet been touched upon by the study, many questions are more likely only posed than solved, however, as a result of research in recent years, it has been possible to reveal with great completeness the general laws of the development of ancient Russian military engineering art. This book is an attempt to present in a concise form the general picture of its history.

ANCIENT PERIOD

The question of when the Slavs appeared on the territory where the Old Russian state was later formed has not yet been finally resolved. Some researchers believe that the Slavs are the original population of this territory, others believe that non-Slavic tribes lived here, and the Slavs moved here much later, only in the middle of the 1st millennium AD. NS. In any case, the Slavic settlements of the 6th - 7th centuries. on the territory of modern Ukraine, we are already well aware. They are located in the southern part of the forest-steppe, almost on the border of the steppes. Apparently, the situation here at that time was quite calm and there was no need to fear enemy attacks - Slavic settlements were built unfortified. Later, the situation changed dramatically: hostile nomadic tribes appeared in the steppes, and fortified settlements began to be built here, according to Old Russian terminology - cities .

During the VIII - X centuries. the Slavs gradually settled the entire territory where the Old Russian state was formed - from the border with the steppe in the south to the Gulf of Finland and Lake Ladoga in the north. In this vast area, we know a large number of Slavic settlements - the remains of fortified settlements. They are very similar to each other in their general defense system and, obviously, correspond to the same tactics of siege both in the south and in the north. Here and there the Slavs dealt with different enemies: in the south, in the forest-steppe zone, they were steppe nomads, in the north, in the forest zone, various Finnish and Lithuanian tribes. Of course, these opponents were armed in different ways and possessed different military techniques. But they all did not have an organized army and did not know how to besiege fortifications.

We know especially well how the steppe people attacked; they suddenly flew into Russian villages, seized cattle, prisoners, property and just as swiftly returned back to the steppe. If a fortified settlement was on the way of their advance, they tried to seize it on the fly, but, meeting organized resistance, they did not try to take the settlement by storm. It is therefore natural that the strengthening of the early Slavic hail might not be very strong; their task was only to delay the enemy, prevent him from suddenly bursting into the village and, in addition, provide the defenders with cover from where they could hit the enemies with arrows. Yes, the Slavs in the 8th - 9th, and partially even in the 10th century, still did not have the opportunity to build powerful fortifications - after all, at that time an early feudal state was just forming here. Most of the settlements belonged to free, relatively sparsely populated territorial communities; they, of course, could not build powerful fortress walls around the settlement on their own or count on someone's help in their construction. Therefore, they tried to build the fortifications so that their main part was made up of natural barriers.

When creating fortifications, first of all, they chose a site that would be protected from all sides by natural obstacles - rivers, steep slopes, swamps. The most suitable for this purpose were the islets in the middle of the river or in the middle of an impassable swamp. The island defense scheme of the village required minimal labor costs to strengthen it. A wooden fence or palisade was built along the edge of the site, and this was limited. True, such fortifications also had very significant flaws. First of all in Everyday life the connection of such a settlement with the surrounding area was very inconvenient. Moreover, the size of the settlement here depended entirely on the natural size of the islet; it was impossible to increase its area. And most importantly, it is far from always and not everywhere that you can find such an island with a site protected by natural barriers from all sides. Therefore, island-type fortifications were used, as a rule, only in swampy areas. Some of the settlements of the Smolensk and Polotsk lands are typical examples of such a system.

Where there were few swamps, but moraine hillocks were abundant, fortified settlements were built on outlier hills. This technique was widespread in the northwestern regions of Russia. However, this type of defense system is associated with certain geographic conditions; individual hills with steep slopes on all sides are also far from everywhere. Therefore, the most common type of fortified settlement became the cape type. For their construction, a cape was chosen, bounded by ravines or at the confluence of two rivers. The settlement turned out to be well protected by water or steep slopes on the sides, but had no natural protection on the floor side. It was here that it was necessary to erect artificial earth obstacles - to tear off a moat. This increased labor costs for the construction of fortifications, but it also gave huge advantages: in almost any geographical conditions it was very easy to find a convenient place, to select in advance the required size of the territory to be fortified. In addition, the earth obtained by tearing off the ditch was usually poured along the edge of the site, thus creating an artificial earthen rampart, which made it even more difficult for the enemy to access the settlement.

All this made the cape type of defense the most common among the Slavs, starting from the most ancient period, that is, from the VIII-IX centuries. It is to this type that the overwhelming majority of the settlements of the so-called Romny-Borshevsk culture, which embraced in the VIII-X centuries, belong to. a vast territory of the Dnieper forest-steppe left bank. One of these settlements - Novotroitskoe - was completely excavated and studied in detail (Fig. 1). As in all fortified settlements of the cape type, one of the sides of the village did not have natural protection and was covered by a wide ditch. No traces of a wooden defensive wall have been found at the edges of the site, although it is possible that some kind of wooden fence originally existed.

1. East Slavic fortified settlement of the 9th century. Reconstruction by I.I.Lyapushkin based on materials from excavations of the Novotroitsk settlement

The main importance in the organization of defense in the VIII-X centuries. nevertheless, they did not have wooden fortifications, but earthen obstacles - natural slopes and artificial ditches. In those cases when the slopes of the cape were not steep enough, they were artificially corrected: approximately in the middle of the height, a horizontal terrace was torn off, so that the upper half of the slope acquired a great steepness. Such a technique - terracing, or, using the modern military engineering term, escarpment, of slopes in ancient Russian fortifications was used very often. Especially often not the entire length of the slopes of the cape was escarped, but only a small section at its very end, where the slope was usually less steep.

Although the cape and island types of fortifications differed significantly from one another, there was much in common between them. First of all, it is the very principle of subordination of the defense system to the natural protective properties of the terrain. In the East Slavic settlements of the VIII - X centuries. this principle was the only one. Ground wooden defensive structures played a subordinate role and were not given much attention. Usually a wooden palisade was erected, traces of which were found on a number of settlements in the Smolensk region. Another type of wooden fence was also used - horizontally laid logs were clamped between pillars driven in pairs into the ground.

So they built East Slavs its fortifications up to the second half of the 10th century, when the ancient Russian early feudal state - Kievan Rus was finally formed.

KIEVAN RUS

Old Russian fortifications of the 8th - 10th centuries. were still very primitive and could successfully perform their defensive functions only because the opponents with whom the Eastern Slavs had to face then did not know how to besiege fortified settlements. But even then, many of these settlements could not withstand the onslaught and died, captured and burned by the enemies. So many fortifications of the Dnieper left bank, destroyed at the end of the 9th century, perished. steppe nomads - Pechenegs. There was no economic opportunity to build more powerful fortifications that could reliably protect against nomadic raids.

In the X and especially in the XI century. the military situation has deteriorated significantly. The pressure of the Pechenegs was felt more and more; the southwestern regions of Rus were in danger from the established Polish state; the attacks of the Baltic, Leto-Lithuanian, tribes also became more dangerous. However, at this time, there were already new opportunities for the construction of fortifications. The sharp social changes that took place in Russia led to the emergence of settlements of new types - feudal castles, princely fortresses and cities in the proper sense of the word, i.e., settlements in which the dominant role was played not by agriculture, but by handicrafts and trade.

First of all, castles began to be built - fortified settlements that served both as a fortress and a feudal lord's dwelling. Having the opportunity to mobilize significant masses of peasants for construction, the feudal lords erected very powerful defensive structures. A small dwelling area surrounded by strong fortifications is the most characteristic feature of the feudal castle.

Even more powerful fortifications could be erected by growing medieval cities. Here, as a rule, defensive walls already surrounded a very significant space. If the area of a feudal castle usually did not even reach 1 hectare, then the fenced area of the city was at least 3-4 hectares, and in the largest ancient Russian cities it exceeded 40-50 hectares. The city fortifications consisted of several (mostly two) defensive lines, one of which surrounded a small central part of the city, called detinets, and the second line defended the territory the roundabout city .

Finally, the addition of the early feudal state and centralized power gave rise to the third type of fortified settlements. In addition to castles and cities, fortresses proper appeared, which the princes built in the border regions and settled with special garrisons.

In all these cases, it was possible to create well-organized and powerful enough fortifications to successfully resist enemy attacks, taking into account the peculiarities of the tactics used.

The tactics of capturing fortifications in the XI century. was as follows: first of all, they tried to attack city by surprise, capture him with a sudden foray. Then it was called exile or departure... If such a capture did not succeed, they began a systematic siege: the army surrounded the fortified settlement and became a camp here. Such a siege was usually called obsession... It had the task of interrupting the connection of the besieged settlement with outside world and to prevent the approach of reinforcements and the delivery of water and food. After a while, the inhabitants of the settlement had to surrender due to hunger and thirst. The chronicle describes the siege of Kiev by the Pechenegs in 968, describing the siege of Kiev by the Pechenegs in a typical picture: “And there was a great fortune to treat the city; I will fatigue people with hunger and water. "

Such a siege system - a passive blockade - was at that time the only reliable means of taking the fortification; a direct assault was decided only if the defensive structures were deliberately weak, and the garrison was small. Depending on how much the inhabitants of the besieged settlement had time to prepare for the defense and stock up on food and especially water, the siege could last for different times, sometimes up to several months. Taking these tactics into account, the defense system was built.

First of all, they tried to arrange the fortified settlement so that the area around was clearly visible, and the enemy could not suddenly approach the city walls and especially the gates. For this, the settlement was built either on a high place, from where there was a wide view, or, conversely, in a low, swampy and level area, where for a long distance there were no forests, ravines or other shelters for enemies. The main means of defense were powerful earthen ramparts with wooden walls on them, which were built so that they could fire from them along the entire perimeter of the fortification. It was the shooting from the city walls that did not allow the besiegers to storm the fortifications and forced them to limit themselves to a passive blockade.

Shooting during this period was used exclusively frontal, that is, directed straight ahead from the fortress walls, and not along them (Table, I). To ensure good fire and prevent the enemy from getting close to the walls, the walls were usually placed on a high rampart or on the edge of a steep natural slope. In the fortifications of the XI century. the natural protective properties of the terrain were still taken into account, but they faded into the background; artificial defensive structures - earthen ramparts and ditches, wooden walls - moved to the fore. True, in the fortifications of the VIII-IX centuries. sometimes there were ramparts, but there they played a much smaller role than ditches. In essence, the ramparts were then only a consequence of the creation of ditches, and they were poured only from the soil that was thrown out of the ditch. In the fortifications of the XI century. the shafts were already of great independent importance.

2. Gorad Tumash in the XI - XII centuries. Reconstruction of the author based on the materials of the settlement Starye Bezradichi

Throughout the territory of ancient Russia in the XI century. the most widespread type of fortifications were still settlements subordinate to the terrain, that is, island and capes fortifications. In the Polotsk and Smolensk lands, where there were many swamps, swamp islands were often used for this purpose, as before. In the Novgorod-Pskov land, the same defensive technique was used in a slightly different way: here fortified settlements were often placed on separate hills. However, in all regions of Russia, most often they used not the island, but the peninsular, that is, the cape, the method of the location of the fortifications. Convenient, well-protected by nature, capes at the confluence of rivers, streams, ravines could be found in any geographical conditions, which explains their widespread use. Sometimes, cape fortifications were also built, where the rampart, as it was before the 10th century, went from only one floor side, from the side of the ditch, but the rampart was now being built much more powerful and higher. For the most part, both in the island and in the cape fortifications of the XI century. the rampart surrounded the settlement along its entire perimeter. In the Kiev land is very typical example the settlement of Starye Bezradichi - the remains of the ancient town of Tumash (Fig. 2), can serve, and in Volyn - the Detinets settlement of Listvin in the area of Dubno (Fig. 3).

3. Detinets of Listvin. X - XI centuries

However, not all the monuments of the 11th century fortification. were completely subordinated to the relief configuration. Already at the end of the X - beginning of the XI century. in the West Russian lands, fortifications appeared with a geometrically correct scheme - round in plan. Sometimes they were located on natural hills and then were close to island-type fortifications. There are such round fortresses on the plain, where the ramparts and ditches were of particular importance (see table, II).

The most peculiar type of fortifications of this time is represented by some monuments of Volyn. These are fortified settlements, close in shape to a square with slightly rounded corners and sides. Usually two, and sometimes even three sides of them are rectilinear, and the fourth (or two sides) are round. These settlements are located on a flat, mostly swampy area. The largest among them is the town of Peresopnitsa; also very characteristic of the detinets of the capital city of Volyn - Volodymyr-Volynsky.

There is no doubt that in different regions of ancient Russia the layout of fortifications had its own characteristics. However, in general, all types of Russian fortifications of the XI century. close to each other, since they were all adapted to the same tactical methods of defense, to conduct exclusively frontal fire from the entire perimeter of the fortress walls.

In the XII century. no significant changes in the organization of the defense of the fortifications took place. Russian fortresses of this time are distinguished in a number of cases by a more thoughtful planning scheme, its greater geometric correctness, but in essence they belong to the same types that already existed in the 11th century.

Characteristically widespread in the XII century. round fortresses. In the Western Russian lands, circular settlements have been known since the 10th century, in the Kiev land and in the Middle Dnieper region, such fortresses began to be built only from the second half of the 11th century; in North-Eastern Russia, the first round fortifications date back to the 12th century. The cities of Mstislavl (Fig. 4) and Mikulin, Dmitrov and Yuryev-Polskaya are good examples of round fortifications in Suzdal. In the XII century. round fortresses are already widely used throughout the ancient Russian territory. By the same principle, semicircular fortresses were built, adjoining on one side a natural defensive line - a river bank or a steep slope. Such are, for example, Przemysl-Moskovsky, Kideksha, Gorodets on the Volga.

4. The city of Mstislavl in the XII century. Drawing by A. Chumachenvo based on the author's reconstruction

The widespread use of round fortifications in the 12th century is explained by the fact that a fortress of this type most closely met the tactical requirements of its time. Indeed, the location of the fortifications on flat and level terrain made it possible to monitor the entire area and thereby made it difficult to unexpectedly capture the fortress. In addition, this made it possible to arrange wells inside the fortification, which was extremely important in the conditions of the dominance of the tactics of a passive long siege. Thus, abandoning the protective properties of hilly terrain and steep slopes, the builders of fortifications in the XII century. used other properties of the area, which gave no less, and perhaps even more benefit. And, finally, the most important advantage of the round fortresses was the convenience of conducting frontal fire from the city walls in all directions, without fear that the configuration of the relief could create "dead", impenetrable areas somewhere.

In the southern regions of Russia in the XII century. multi-shaft fortifications are also becoming widespread, that is, fortresses surrounded not by one defensive fence, but by several parallel ones, each of which was erected on an independent rampart. Such fortifications were known earlier, in the X-XI centuries, but in the XII century. this technique is more widely used. In some settlements located on the border of the Kiev and Volyn principalities, in the so-called Bolokhov land, the number of parallel lines of ramparts sometimes reaches even four: such is the ancient city of Gubin (Fig. 5).

5. The settlement of Gubin in the Bolokhov land. XII - XIII centuries

The layout of large Old Russian cities had a somewhat different character. Detinets was often built in the same way as ordinary fortifications, that is, almost always according to the cape scheme, and from the floor side they protected it with a powerful rampart and a ditch. Behind the moat there was a roundabout town, usually several times larger than the area of Detinets. The defensive system of the roundabout city in some, the most favorable cases, was also designed to be protected by natural slopes on the sides and by a rampart from the floor. This is the scheme of the defense of Galich, in which the Detinets was covered from the ground with two powerful ramparts and ditches, and the roundabout city was covered with a line of three parallel ramparts and ditches. In the north of Russia, the defense of ancient Pskov was built according to the same cape scheme.

Nevertheless, it was usually almost impossible to fully maintain the cape scheme in the defense of large cities. And therefore, if Detinets was built as a cape fortification, then the ramparts and ditches that enclosed the roundabout city were mostly built differently. Here, not so much natural defensive lines were taken into account, but the task of covering the entire area of the trade and craft settlement, which sometimes reached very large sizes. At the same time, the defensive walls of the roundabout city often did not have any definite, clearly expressed scheme, but were built taking into account all available natural boundaries - ravines, streams, slopes, etc. This is the defense system of Kiev, Pereyaslavl, Ryazan, Suzdal and many other large ancient Russian cities. The protected area of Kiev reached 100 hectares, Pereyaslavl - more than 60 hectares, Ryazan - about 50 hectares.

There are several large ancient Russian cities with a different defense scheme. So, in Vladimir-Volynsky, Detinets belongs to the "Volyn" type of fortifications, that is, it has the shape of a rectangle, as it were, combined with a circle, and the roundabout town is a huge semicircular settlement. In Novgorod Veliky, Detinets has a semicircular shape, and the roundabout town is irregularly round, and the roundabout town is located on both banks of the Volkhov, and thus the river flows through the fortress.

There is no doubt that all types of planning for fortifications of the 11th - 12th centuries, both completely subordinate to the terrain relief, and having an artificial geometric shape, correspond to the same principles of organizing defense. All of them are designed to protect the entire perimeter by frontal fire from city walls.

The use of certain planning techniques is explained by various reasons - certain natural and geographical conditions, local engineering traditions, the social nature of the settlements themselves. So, for example, fortifications of a rounded type in the West Russian lands existed already at the end of the 10th - the first half of the 11th century; their appearance here was associated with the engineering tradition of the northwestern group of Slavs, who have long adapted their construction to local geographic conditions - a marshy low-lying plain, moraine hillocks, etc.

However, the spread of round-type fortresses, first in the Middle Dnieper region, and then in North-Eastern Russia, was caused by other reasons. Small round settlements ("plates"), widespread in the Middle Dnieper region, are settlements of a certain social type - fortified boyar yards, a kind of Russian version of feudal castles. The round settlements of North-Eastern Russia are also feudal castles, but often not boyars' castles, but large princely ones. Sometimes these are even quite significant princely cities (for example, Pereslavl-Zalessky).

The connection of round fortifications with settlements of a certain social character - with feudal castles - can be explained very simply. In the XI - XII centuries. round fortifications most closely corresponded to the tactical principles of defense. But it was only possible to build them entirely from scratch in a new place, choosing the most convenient site. In addition, the fortification could receive the correct geometric shape only when it was built by a military specialist, since there was no folk tradition of erecting round fortifications either in South or in Northeastern Russia. In addition, the construction of round fortresses in the plain required more labor than fortifications of the island or cape type, where the benefits of the relief were widely used. Naturally, under such conditions round type could find application primarily in the construction of feudal castles or princely fortresses.

Some fortifications had a very peculiar social character. northwest regions ancient Russia. Here there are small, often primitive fortifications, completely subordinate to the protective properties of the relief. They did not have a permanent population; they served as refuge fortresses. The villages of the northwestern regions of Russia usually consisted of only a few courtyards. Of course, each such village could not build its own fortress, and in order to build even the most primitive fortification, several villages had to unite. In peacetime, such fortress-shelters were maintained in a combat-ready state by the inhabitants of the same neighboring villages, and during enemy invasions, the surrounding population fled here to wait out the dangerous time.

* * *

Earthen parts of defensive structures - natural slopes, escarpments, artificial ramparts and ditches - were the basis for the construction of Russian fortresses of the 11th-12th centuries. Earthen ramparts were especially important. They were poured from the soil that was available nearby (most often from the soil obtained by tearing ditches), from clay, black soil, loess, etc., and in areas where sand predominated, even from sand. True, in such cases, the core of the shaft was protected from shedding by wooden formwork, as was found, for example, when examining the shafts of the mid-12th century. in Galich-Mersky. Of course, dense soil was better, which held well and did not crumble from rain and wind. If there was little dense soil, it was used to fill the front part of the shafts, their front slope, and the rear part was filled from weaker or loose soil.

Shafts were built, as a rule, asymmetrical; their front slope was made steeper, and the rear one was made more gentle. Usually, the front slope of the ramparts had a steepness from 30 to 45 ° to the horizon, and the rear one - from 25 to 30 °. On the back slope, approximately in the middle of its height, a horizontal terrace was sometimes made, which made it possible to move along the rampart. Often the back slope or only its base was paved with stone. The stone pavement provided the possibility of uninterrupted movement of soldiers along the rear slope and along it during hostilities.

Ladders were built to climb to the top of the rampart; sometimes they were made of wood, but in some places during excavations the remains of stairs carved into the ground of the rampart were found. The front slope of the rampart, apparently, was often coated with clay to prevent the soil from shattering and make it difficult for the enemy to climb the rampart. The top of the rampart had the character of a narrow horizontal platform on which a wooden defensive wall stood.

The sizes of the shafts were different. In medium-sized fortifications, the ramparts rarely rose to a height of more than 4 m, but in strong fortresses, the height of the ramparts was much higher. The ramparts of large ancient Russian cities were especially high. So, the ramparts of Vladimir were about 8 m in height, Ryazan - up to 10 m, and the ramparts of the "city of Yaroslav" in Kiev, the highest of all the known ramparts of ancient Russia, were 16 m.

The ramparts were not always purely earthen; sometimes they had a rather complex wooden structure inside. This structure tied the embankment and prevented it from spreading. Shaft wooden structures are not only a feature of Old Russian defensive structures; they can be found in the ramparts of Polish, Czech and other settlements. However, these designs differ significantly from each other.

In Polish fortresses, intra-shaft structures for the most part consist of several rows of logs that are not connected to each other, and the logs of one layer usually lie perpendicular to the logs of the next layer. Czechs have wooden structures in the form of a lattice frame, sometimes reinforced with masonry. In ancient Russian fortresses, intra-shaft structures almost always represent oak log cabins clogged with earth.

True, in Poland, log-in intra-shaft structures are sometimes found, and in Russia, on the contrary, structures consisting of several layers of logs. For example, a structure of several layers of logs not connected with each other was found in the ramparts of Novgorodsky Detinets and ancient Minsk of the 11th century. Reinforcement of the lower part of the shaft with logs with wooden hooks at the ends, exactly the same as in Poland, was found in the shaft of the Moscow Kremlin in the 12th century. And yet, despite a number of coincidences, the difference between the intra-shaft structures of ancient Russian fortresses and fortifications of other Slavic countries is felt quite definitely. Moreover, in Russia, timber-frame intra-shaft structures have several options, successively replacing one another.

The earliest intra-shaft wooden structures were found in several fortresses of the late 10th century, built during the reign of Prince Vladimir Svyatoslavich - in Belgorod, Pereyaslavl and a small fortress on the river. Stugne (settlement Zarechye). Here, at the base of the earthen rampart, there is a line of oak log cabins placed along the rampart close to one another. They are chopped "with the remainder" (otherwise "in the break") and therefore the ends of the logs protrude outward from the corners of the log cabins by about 1/2 m. located in its back. In front of the log cabins, in the front part of the shaft, there is a lattice frame made of beams knocked together with iron crutches, filled with masonry of adobe bricks on clay. This whole structure is covered with earth from above, which forms the slopes of the rampart.

Such a complex intra-shaft design was very laborious and, apparently, did not justify itself. Already in the first half of the XI century. it has been greatly simplified. The front side of the trees began to be made purely earthen, without raw masonry. Only a line of oak log cabins remained, closely attached to one another and densely packed with earth. Such constructions are known in many Russian fortresses of the XI-XII centuries: in Volyn - in Chertorysk, in the Kiev land - on the settlement of Starye Bezradichi, in North-Eastern Russia - on a settlement near the Sungirevsky ravine near Vladimir, in Novgorod - in the rampart of the roundabout city and in the northern part of the rampart of Novgorodsky Detinets, and in some other fortifications.

Sometimes, if the shafts reached a considerable width, each frame had elongated proportions. It was stretched across the shaft, and inside it was partitioned off by one or even several log walls. Thus, each log house no longer consisted of one, but of several chambers. This technique was applied, for example, in the rampart of ancient Mstislavl in the Suzdal land.

But the most complex and grandiose example of an intra-shaft log structure is the ramparts of the “city of Yaroslav” in Kiev, built in the 30s of the 11th century. under Yaroslav the Wise. Although the ancient ramparts of Kiev have survived only in a few areas, and even then less than half of their original height, the oak logs discovered here are about 7 m high (Fig. 6). Initially, these log cabins rose, like the entire rampart, to a height of 12 to 16 m. The log cabins of the Kiev rampart reached about 19 m across the rampart, and almost 7 m along the rampart. , and across - into six parts). Thus, each log house consisted of 12 chambers.

6. Oak logs in the shaft of the "city of Yaroslav" in Kiev. 30s of the XI century. (excavated in 1952)

In the process of erecting the rampart, the log cabins, as they were built, were gradually densely clogged with loess. As in all other cases, the front wall of the log cabins was located under the crest of the rampart, and since the rampart was huge, its front part, devoid of an internal frame, apparently raised doubts: they were afraid that it might slide. Therefore, at the base of the front part of the shaft, an additional structure was arranged from a number of low log cabins.

In the XII century. Along with the construction of separate log cabins, a technique was spread, in which the log cabins were interconnected into a single system by cutting their longitudinal logs "with an overlap". This is, for example, the construction of the shaft of the Detinets in Vyshgorod. This technique turned out to be especially convenient in the construction of fortresses, in which premises were located along the rampart, structurally connected with the rampart itself. Here the log structure consisted of several rows of cells, and only one outer row was filled with earth and constituted the structural basis of the defensive rampart. The rest of the cells, facing the inner courtyard of the fortress, remained unoccupied and were used as household, and sometimes also as living quarters. Such a constructive technique appeared in the first half of the 11th century, but it became widely used only in the 12th century.

Moats in Russian fortresses of the 11th - 12th centuries. usually had a symmetrical profile. The slope of their walls was approximately 30 - 45 ° to the horizon; the walls of the ditches were made straight, and the bottom was mostly slightly rounded. The depth of the ditches was usually approximately equal to the height of the ramparts, although in many cases natural ravines were used for the construction of the ditches, and then the ditches, of course, exceeded the ramparts in size and were very large. In those cases when fortified settlements were erected in low-lying or swampy areas, they tried to tear off the ditches so that they were filled with water (Fig. 7).

7. Shaft and moat of the Mstislavl settlement. XII century

Defensive ramparts, as a rule, were not poured at the very edge of the ditch. To prevent the rampart from falling into the ditch, a horizontal berm about 1 m wide was almost always left at the base of the rampart.

In fortifications located on hills, natural slopes were usually cut to make them more even and steep, and where the slopes were of a low steepness, they were often cut with a scarp terrace; due to this, the slope located above the terrace acquired great steepness.

No matter how important the earthen defensive structures and, first of all, the ramparts, were in the ancient Russian fortresses, they still represented only the basis on which wooden walls always stood. Brick or stone walls in the XI - XII centuries. are known in isolated cases. So, the walls of the metropolitan's estate around the St. Sophia Cathedral in Kiev and the walls of the Kiev-Pechersky Monastery were brick, while the walls of the metropolitan "city" in Pereyaslavl were brick. Detinets, or rather the princely-episcopal center in Vladimir, was surrounded by a stone wall. All these "city" walls are essentially monuments of cult rather than military architecture; these are the walls of metropolitan or monastic estates, where military defensive functions gave way to artistic and ideological functions. Closer to the actual fortifications were the stone walls of the castles in Bogolyubov (Suzdal land) and in Kholm (Western Volyn). However, here, too, artistic tasks, the desire to create a solemn and monumental impression of the prince's residence played a greater role than purely military demands.

Apparently, the only region of Russia, where the tradition of building stone defensive walls had already begun to take shape, was the Novgorod land. A significant role in the formation of this tradition was probably played by the fact that in this area there were outcrops of a natural limestone slab, which is very easy to extract and provides excellent material for construction.

The walls of all Russian fortifications of the 11th - 12th centuries. were, as said, made of wood. They stood at the top of the rampart and were log cabins, fastened at certain distances by short sections of transverse walls, connected to the longitudinal ones "in a flash". Apparently, such log walls were first used in Russian military architecture from the second half of the 10th century. They were already much more durable than the primitive fences of the 8th - 9th centuries. (Fig. 8, top).

8. Above - the defensive walls of the Russian city of the XI-XII centuries. Reconstruction by the author; below - the fortress walls of Belgorod. End of the 10th century Model of the State Historical Museum. Reconstruction by B.A. Rybakov and M.V. Gorodtsov

The walls, which consisted of separate log cabins tightly attached to one another, differed in a peculiar rhythm of the ends of the transverse walls: each section of the wall, which was 3 - 4 m long, alternated with a short interval of about 1 m long.Each such link of the wall, regardless of the structural type called gorodney... In those cases when the defensive ramparts had a wooden structure inside, the ground walls were closely connected with it, being, as it were, its direct continuation upward above the surface of the rampart (Fig. 8, below).

The walls reached a height of about 3 - 5 m. In the upper part, they were equipped with a combat passage in the form of a balcony or a gallery running along the wall from its inner side and covered from the outside by a log parapet. In ancient Russia, such protective devices were called visors... Here, during the hostilities, there were defenders who fired at the enemy through the loopholes in the parapet. It is possible that already in the XII century. such combat platforms were sometimes made slightly protruding in front of the plane of the wall, which made it possible to shoot from the pick not only forward, but also down - to the foot of the walls, or pour boiling water onto the precipitators. The visor was covered with a roof from above.

The most important part of the defense of the fortress was the gate. In small fortifications, the gates may have been made in the same way as ordinary utility gates. However, in the overwhelming majority of fortresses, the gates were built in the form of a tower with a passage in its lower part. The gate driveway was usually located at the site level, i.e. at the level of the ramparts. A wooden tower rose above the passage, to which ramparts and walls adjoined from the sides. Only in such large cities as Kiev, Vladimir, Novgorod, with wooden walls, brick or stone gates were built. Remains of the main gates of Kiev and Vladimir, which were called Golden (Fig. 9), have survived to this day. In addition to purely military functions, they served as a solemn arch, expressing the wealth and grandeur of the city; over the gates there were overhead churches.

9. Span of the Golden Gate in Vladimir. XII century

In those cases when a moat passed in front of the gate, a wooden bridge, as a rule, rather narrow, was built across it. In moments of danger, the defenders of the city sometimes destroyed the bridges themselves in order to make it difficult for the enemy to approach the gates. Special draw bridges in Russia in the XI - XII centuries. almost never used. In addition to the main gates, additional hidden exits were sometimes made in fortresses, mostly in the form of tree-lined passages through the earthen rampart. Outside, they were covered with a thin wall and disguised, and were used to arrange unexpected sorties during the siege.

It should be noted that, as a rule, there were no towers in Russian fortresses of the 11th-12th centuries. In every city, of course, there was a gate tower, but it was considered precisely as a gate, and this is how it is always called in ancient Russian written sources. Individual towers, not gateways, were built very rarely, exclusively as watchtowers, placing them at the highest place and intended for viewing the surroundings in order to protect the fortress from an unexpected approach of enemies and sudden capture.

* * *

The most outstanding monument of military architecture of the era of the early feudal state was undoubtedly the fortifications of Kiev. In the IX - X centuries. Kiev was a very small town located on the promontory of a high mountain above the Dnieper slopes. On the floor side, it was protected by a rampart and a moat. At the end of the X century. fortifications of this original settlement were torn down due to the need to expand the territory of the city. The new defensive line, the so-called city of Vladimir, consisted of a rampart and a ditch that surrounded an area of approximately 11 hectares. A wooden fortress wall ran along the rampart, and the main gate was brick.

The rapid growth of the political and economic importance of Kiev and its population led to the need to protect the expanded territory of the city, and in the 30s of the XI century. a new powerful defensive system was built - "the city of Yaroslav". The area protected by the ramparts was now about 100 hectares. But the belt of Yaroslav's fortifications did not protect the entire territory of the ancient city: below, under the mountain, there was a large urban area - Podol, which, apparently, also had some kind of defensive structures.

The line of ramparts of the "city of Yaroslav" stretched for about 3 1/2 km, and where the ramparts passed along the edge of the hill, there were no ditches in front of them, and where there were no natural slopes, a deep ditch was dug everywhere in front of the rampart. The shafts, as we have already noted, had a very high height - 12-16 m - and the inner frame was made of huge oak log cabins. A timber-frame defensive wall ran along the top of the ramparts. Three city gates led through the ramparts and, in addition, Borichev vzvoz connected the "upper city" with Podol. The main gate of Kiev - the Golden - was a brick tower with a passage that was 7 m wide and 12 m high. The vaulted passage was closed by gates bound with gilded copper. A church was located above the gate.

The gigantic defensive structures of Kiev were not only a powerful fortress, but also a highly artistic monument of architecture: not without reason in the 11th century. Metropolitan Hilarion said that Prince Yaroslav the Wise was "a glorious city ... Kiev was like a crown with majesty."

* * *

The most important military-political task facing the princely power during the early feudal state was the organization of the defense of the southern Russian lands from the steppe nomads. The entire zone of the forest-steppe, that is, just the most important regions of Russia, was constantly under the threat of their invasion. How great this danger was can be judged at least by the fact that in 968 the Pechenegs almost captured the very capital of ancient Russia - Kiev, and a little later the victory over the Pechenegs was won only under the walls of Kiev. Meanwhile, the early feudal state could not create continuous fortified border lines; such a task was only possible for the centralized Russian state in the 16th century.

In the literature, there are often indications that in Kievan Rus' allegedly there were border defensive lines, the remnants of which are the so-called Zmiyevy Shafts, stretching for many tens of kilometers. But this is not true. The Serpent Shafts in reality are monuments of another, much more ancient era and have nothing to do with Kievan Rus.

The defense of the southern Russian lands was built differently, by laying fortified settlements in the border areas with the steppe - cities... Nomads rarely ventured into raids deep into Russian territory if they had unconquered Russian cities in their rear. After all, the garrisons of these cities could strike at them from behind or cut their escape route back to the steppe. Therefore, the more fortified settlements there were in any area, the more difficult it was for the nomads to devastate this area. The same applies to areas bordering Poland or lands inhabited by Lithuanian tribes. The more there was cities, the "stronger" the land was, the more secure the Russian population could live here. And it is quite natural that in the most dangerous areas due to enemy invasions they tried to build more cities, especially on the possible routes of the enemy's advance, that is, on the main roads, near river crossings, etc.

Vigorous construction of fortresses in the Kiev region (mainly to the south of it) was carried out by the princes Vladimir Svyatoslavich and Yaroslav the Wise at the end of the 10th - first half of the 11th century. At the same time of the heyday of the power of Kievan Rus, a very significant number cities under construction in other Russian lands, especially in Volyn. All this made it possible to strengthen the southern Russian territory, to create here a more or less safe environment for the population.

In the second half of the XI century. the situation in South Russia has noticeably changed for the worse. New enemies appeared in the steppes - the Polovtsians. In military-tactical terms, they differed little from the Pechenegs, Torks and other steppe nomads with whom Russia had encountered earlier. They were just as easily agile horsemen who swooped in suddenly and swiftly. The purpose of the raids of the Polovtsy, as well as of the Pechenegs, was the seizure of prisoners and property, theft of cattle; they did not know how to besiege and storm the fortifications. And yet, the Polovtsians posed a terrible threat, first of all, because of their large numbers. Their pressure on the southern Russian lands was increasing, and by the 90s of the XI century. the situation has become truly catastrophic. A significant part of the southern Russian territory was devastated; residents abandoned the cities and fled north to safer forested areas. Among the abandoned at the end of the XI century. Fortified settlements turned out to be quite significant cities, such as the settlements Listvin in Volyn, Stupnitsa in the Galician land, and others. The southern borders of the Russian land shifted noticeably to the north.

At the turn of the XI and XII centuries. the fight against the Polovtsians became a task on the solution of which the very existence of Southern Russia depended. Vladimir Monomakh became the head of the united military forces of the Russian lands. As a result of a fierce struggle, the Polovtsians were defeated and the situation in the southern Russian lands became less tragic.

And yet, during the entire XII century. the Polovtsians still remained a terrible threat to the entire southern Russian territory. It was possible to live in these areas only if there were a significant number of well-fortified settlements, where the population could flee in times of danger, and the garrison of which could strike the steppe at any moment. Therefore, in the southern Russian principalities in the XII century. intensive construction of fortresses is being carried out, which the princes populate with special garrisons. A kind of social group of warriors-farmers appears, engaged in agriculture in peacetime, but always having war horses and good weapons at the ready. They were on constant alert. Fortresses with such garrisons were built according to a pre-planned plan, and along the entire defensive rampart they had a number of log cages, structurally connected to the rampart and used as utility rooms, and partly as living quarters.

These are the cities of Izyaslavl, Kolodyazhin, Raikovetskoye settlement, etc.

The defense of the southern Russian lands from the steppe nomads is far from the only, albeit very important, military-strategic task that had to be solved in the 11th-12th centuries. A significant number of well-fortified cities arose in the western part of the Volyn and Galician principalities, on the border with Poland. Many of these cities (for example, Suteysk and others) were clearly built as border strongholds, while others (Cherven, Volyn, Przemysl) arose as cities that were initially primarily of economic importance, but later, due to their border position, were included in general strategic defense system.

Cities of purely military significance were built, however, not only in the border regions of Rus. In the XII century. the process of the feudal fragmentation of the country had already gone so far that completely independent strong Russian principalities were formed, vigorously fighting with each other. The clashes of the Galician and Suzdal princes with the Volyn princes, the Suzdal with the Novgorod princes, etc. fill the history of Russia in the 12th century. almost continuous internecine wars. In a number of cases, more or less stable borders of individual principalities are formed. As with national borders, there were no continuous border lines; the borders were protected by separate fortified settlements located on the main land or waterways. Not all borders between the principalities were strengthened. So, for example, the borders of the Galician land from Volyn or the border Novgorod land from the side of Suzdal were not protected at all. And even where there were numerous cities on the border, they were not always built to protect this border. Sometimes it happened the other way around - the very border between the principalities was established along the line where the cities already stood, which only after that acquired the significance of border strongholds.

* * *

The construction of fortifications in the Middle Ages was an extremely responsible matter, and it is clear that the feudal power kept it in their hands. People who supervised the construction cities, were not artisans, but representatives of the princely administration, military engineering specialists. In ancient Russian written sources they were called city dwellers.

The construction of new city walls, as well as the restructuring and maintenance of the already existing fortifications in a combat-ready state, required huge labor costs and fell heavily on the shoulders of the feudally dependent population. Even when the princes, in the form of a special privilege to the patrimonials, freed dependent peasants from duties in favor of the prince, they usually did not relieve them of the most difficult duty - "city affairs". In the same way, the townspeople were not free from this duty. How much labor it cost to build defensive structures can be judged by rough estimates of the required labor costs. So, for example, for the construction of the largest fortification of Kievan Rus - the fortifications of the "city of Yaroslav" in Kiev - about a thousand people had to work continuously for about five years. The construction of a small fortress Mstislavl in Suzdal land was supposed to employ approximately 180 workers during one construction season.

The fortifications were not only of purely utilitarian, military significance: they were also works of architecture that had their own artistic face. The architectural appearance of the city was determined primarily by its fortress; the first thing that a person who drove up to the city saw was the belt of the fortress walls and their battle gates. It is not for nothing that such gates in Kiev and Vladimir were designed as huge triumphal arches... The artistic significance of the fortifications was well taken into account by the builders of the fortresses themselves, which is clearly reflected in the ancient Russian written sources.

PERIOD OF FEUDAL DISTRIBUTION

Significant changes in the development of Russian military engineering art took place in the 13th century. Already from the second half of the XII century. written sources more and more often inform about the "capture with a spear" of Russian cities, that is, with the help of a direct assault. Gradually, this technique is becoming more widespread in the XIII century. almost completely supplants the tactics of passive siege. During the assault, they begin to use auxiliary devices - the ditches are filled up with bundles of brushwood (will accept), climb the walls using ladders. From the very beginning of the XIII century. stone-throwing machines are also beginning to be used to destroy city walls.

By the middle of the XIII century. these new tactics are gradually forming into a whole system of new tactics for storming fortresses. It is difficult to say how this tactics would have finally taken shape and how these changes would have affected the further development of Russian fortresses. The Mongol invasion dramatically changed the entire military-political situation.

The Mongols brought with them to Russia a detailed strategy of siege of fortresses. It was, in general, the same tactic that was being developed at that time in Russia itself, but among the Mongols it was supported by the widespread use of stone throwers (according to Old Russian terminology - vices). Stone-throwing machines threw stones of such a size, "as if four people could lift them," and they installed these machines in front of the walls of the besieged city at a distance of no more than 100 - 150 m, approximately at the range of an arrow from a bow. Only at this or even closer distance are stones thrown vices could damage wooden walls. In addition, starting the siege of the city, the Mongols surrounded it with a palisade in order to cut off the communication of the city with the outside world, to cover their shooters, and most importantly, to prevent the attacks of defenders who were trying to destroy vices... After that, they began to systematically beat stones from stone throwers on the city walls in order to smash some part of them, or at least knock down their wooden parapets, and took them away. When this was possible, a massive bombardment from bows showered this section of the wall with a cloud of arrows; “I’m like rain in the forest with arrows.” The defenders, deprived of parapet, could not return fire: "not letting them vyniknuyut from the fences." And it was here, in the area where the active rifle defense was suppressed, that the attackers threw the main forces of the assault. In this way, the Mongols successfully took even the largest and most defended Russian cities.

The use of well-developed assault techniques by the Mongols should have accelerated the formation of new defensive tactics and a new military-engineering defense organization in Russia. However, the development of Russian military engineering art was primarily affected by the devastating consequences. Mongol invasion... Taking advantage of the feudal fragmentation of Russia, the Mongols individually defeated the military forces of the Russian principalities and established a regime of the most severe yoke. Under these conditions, the restoration and development of the undermined productive forces of the country could proceed extremely slowly, only in a fierce struggle against the invaders. One of the most economically developed regions of Russia - the Middle Dnieper region - was so drained of blood by the defeat that here the construction of serfdom was interrupted for several centuries.

Two regions of Russia were able to relatively quickly recover from the Mongol blow - South-West (Galicia-Volyn land) and North (Vladimir-Suzdal and Novgorod) Russia. It is here that you can trace the further development of Russian military engineering.

* * *

Even before the Mongol invasion, defensive structures began to appear in Volhynia, adapted to new tactical requirements. Since the assault, as a rule, was always supported by stone throwers, the fortifications began to be positioned so that there was no way to install these machines in front of the city walls. For example, the cities of Danilov and Kremenets were built in the first half of the 13th century. on rather high individual mountains with steep slopes (Fig. 10). Stone throwers, on the other hand, could not strike upward to great heights. It is remarkable that the Mongols, who took by storm all the largest cities of the Kiev region and Volhynia, did not even try to storm these two fortresses, because, according to the chronicler's remark, Baty understood that he still would not be able to take them: “Seeing Kremyanets and the city of Danilov, like it is impossible for him to accept, away from them. "

10. Mount Trinity - the remains of the city of Danilov. XIII century

Mountains in Volyn were, however, far from everywhere, and in the more northern regions, fortifications were built, which were small round platforms in an impassable swamp. Apparently, the system of organizing their defense was subordinated to the same task - to prevent the use of stone throwers.

It was very difficult to find on the Volyn territory such places for the construction of cities that would guarantee safety from the enemy's stone throwers. In addition, many cities in Volhynia existed long before the Mongol invasion; these cities also had to be fortified in view of the new tactical requirements. However, the construction of new cities and the strengthening of old ones could not be carried out everywhere: the Mongols, vigilantly watching the activities of the Russian princes, demanded the destruction of city fortifications. Only in the western and northern regions of the Volyn principality, more remote from the Mongolian supervision, it was possible to build fortresses. Here in the second half of the XIII and at the beginning of the XIV century. build fortifications of a new type - stone towers. Placed inside the city walls, usually closer to the most dangerous side during an assault, these towers provided wide and distant shelling of the surrounding area. Making it possible to shoot at the enemy from crossbows and bows from above, the towers themselves suffered little from the blows of stone throwers.

11. Detail of the tower in Kamenets-Litovskiy

Similar towers have survived in Kamenets-Litovsky and in Stolpye near Kholm (Fig. 11, 12A, 12B); there are ruins of the tower in Belavin (also under the Hill). Excavations have uncovered the foundations of another tower in Chertorysk. These towers differ from each other both in material and in shape. In Stolpye and Belavin they are made of stone and have a rectangular, almost square shape; the outer size of the tower in Stolpye is 5.8x6.3 m, in Belavin - 11.8x12.4 m. The towers in Kamenets-Litovsky and Chertorysk are brick, round, their outer diameter is 13.6 m. The height of the towers in Stolpye is 20 m, in Kamenets-Litovsky - 29 m. According to written sources, it is known that the same towers were in Grodno and Berestye, and in Kholm there was a wooden tower on a high stone base.

12a. Tower in Kamyanets-Litovskiy. Second half of the 13th century

12b. Tower in Stolpie near Kholm. XIII-XIV centuries

All of them are analogous to Western European donjons; and they appeared in Volyn, undoubtedly, under the influence of the military architecture of the western neighbors of Volyn - Poland and Hungary, where towers-donjons became widespread at the same time. Therefore, dictated by the new tactical requirements prevailing in Russia, the construction of the Volyn stone towers was carried out in specifically Western forms.

Changes in the tactics of siege and defense of fortresses affected Volhynia not only in the construction of individual donjon towers. There was also a new tendency to strengthen by all possible means the side of the fortress against which the besiegers could place stone throwers. This technique can be seen already in the Bolokhov towns of the late 12th - early 13th centuries. Here, part of the perimeter of the fortification is protected by a natural barrier - the river, but the other sides have a reinforced defense of several lines of ramparts and ditches. The same tendency was very clearly manifested in Galich, where the defense of the roundabout city consists of three parallel ramparts and ditches. In this case, the ramparts here are artificially somewhat moved apart, so that between each rampart and the ditch lying behind it there is a horizontal platform. Due to this, the total width of the defensive belt - from the beginning of the first (outer) ditch to the crest of the third rampart - reaches 84 m. , shaft, stone throwers in this case would have to be installed at a distance of no more than 50 - 60 m from the first ditch. Meanwhile, the defenders of the city could shoot at the besiegers, and primarily at the people serving the stone throwers, from behind the shelter that stood on the first shaft. Thus, the besiegers had to shoot at 150 m, and the defenders of the city - at twice the shorter distance.

Strengthening of one, floor, side of the fortress was also manifested in the fact that it was here that towers were usually built. So, the tower in Chertorysk stood on the inner side of the rampart, on the most dangerous section of the floor side of the fortress. The tower in Grodno, apparently, even protruded outward from the floor of the fortress wall and made it possible to fire at the approach to the gate, that is, to conduct oblique, flanking fire (Fig. 13).

13. The city of Grodno in the XIII century. Watercolor by I. Novodvorskaya after reconstruction by the author. Grodno Historical and Archaeological Museum

However, new organization defense with the use of flanking fire, apparently, did not yet develop into a complete system until the middle of the XIV century, when the Galicia-Volyn land lost its political independence, but many elements of the Galicia-Volyn military architecture were later developed already in. fortress building in Poland and Lithuania.

* * *

Northeastern Russia suffered from the Mongol invasion much more than Volhynia, and even more so its western and northern regions. Therefore, in the second half of the XIII century. here they could not even think about building new fortresses, limiting themselves only to restoring the old fortifications ravaged by the Mongols. However, in the future, Northeastern Russia gradually accumulated strength and turned into the nucleus of the emerging centralized Russian state. Already from the middle of the XIV century. here signs of a new flourishing of cities are outlined, from the same time the construction of new fortresses began, especially in the Moscow and Tver principalities.

These new fortresses are fundamentally different from the fortresses of the pre-Mongol period, adapted to resist a passive siege. Fortresses of the XIV century are built to successfully repel an assault supported by rock throwers. This was done, however, in a completely different way than in Western Volyn. In the northern regions of Russia, multi-row defensive lines were not used at all. True, it is very possible that in the first half of the XIV century. here, as in Volyn, they began to build instead of reckless fortresses of the XI-XIII centuries. fortresses equipped with one tower; but the nature of the fortification here was completely different, and by the middle of the XIV century. the new system of fortress defense completely prevailed.

The fortresses built in accordance with this system were organized so that most of their perimeter was covered by natural barriers - rivers, wide ravines, steep slopes. From these sides, the enemy could not install stone-throwing machines, and here there was no need to fear an assault. The side, where there were no such natural obstacles, was protected by powerful ramparts, ditches and wooden walls. Towers were also placed on the floor side. Unlike the stone towers-donjons of Western Volhynia, these towers were not designed for circular shelling, but for oblique shooting along the adjacent sections of the fortress walls, that is, they served to flank them. Wall sections between towers (spun) began to be made as straight as possible so that the flanking shelling could be most successful.

Thus, the fortresses of North-Eastern Russia of the second half of the XIV and the first half of the XV century. have a "one-sided" character: one side of them is protected by powerful fortifications and equipped with towers for flanking the walls, and the rest with weaker fortifications, adapted only for frontal shooting, but covered with natural barriers (see Table, III). Such fortresses were fully consistent with the siege tactics used at that time. First, they provided flanking shelling of the floor sections of the walls, which was the most effective means of repelling an assault. Secondly, the construction of such fortifications required less costs and was more economical.

An example of the earliest fortifications, where the described "one-sided" defense system was already fully developed, is the city of Staritsa in Tver land (1366). Among the monuments of the XIV century. the fortifications of the cities of Romanov, Vyshegorod on Protva are also characteristic, and among the monuments of the beginning of the 15th century. - Ples, Galich-Mersky, etc. From the point of view of saving money and labor, the most advantageous location of the fortress was on a cape where the floor side would fall on a narrow isthmus and, therefore, would have a very short length (see Table, IV )>. Such are, for example, the cities of Radonezh and Vyshegorod on Yakhroma. The location of the fortress on the peninsula in a river loop was also very advantageous, since here, too, the floor threatened side had an insignificant length. Such are Kashin and Vorotynsk.

The same principles underlie the planning of the fortifications of Northwestern Russia in the 14th - first half of the 15th century. The Novgorod and Pskov fortresses of this time in most cases are very similar to those of Moscow and Tver, but they also have some distinctive features. Here, island-type fortifications are widespread, occupying separate hills with steep slopes on all sides. Such are, for example, the Novgorod towns of Demon (fortified settlement Knyazhya Gora) and Koshkin town, as well as the Pskov fortresses of Dubkov and Vrev. Fortifications on river islands were also used here - for example, Ostrov, Opochka, Tiversky town. When the Novgorod and Pskov town-makers adhered to the cape type of the fortress, they usually did not observe the geometric correctness of its ramparts and valued natural barriers more than the builders of fortifications of North-Eastern Russia.

It is characteristic that the Novgorodians and Pskovians in the XIV - XV centuries. continuously improved and reconstructed the fortifications not only of Detinets, but also of the surrounding towns in their capitals - Novgorod and Pskov. In North-Eastern Russia at that time, not only did they not build the defensive structures of the roundabout cities, but they did not even support the fortifications of the roundabout cities that had developed in the XII-XIII centuries. The reason for this, apparently, is that in North-Eastern Russia the strengthening of the princely power led to the complete subordination of the cities, which in the XIV-XV centuries. did not have any rights of self-government here. Meanwhile, the construction of fortifications of the roundabout cities was, apparently, always associated with local, city government and was the function of the townspeople, not the prince. Perhaps the differences in the structure of the fortifications of individual regions of Rus are even reflected in terminology. So, in the Moscow and Tver principalities, the central part of the fortifications acquired the name Kremlin, in Novgorod the term detinets, and Pskov has its own local term - chrome.

* * *

A distinctive feature of the fortifications of the XIV - first half of the XV century. is a differentiated approach of architects to structures in accordance with their place in the defense system. Ramparts and walls located on the side of rather powerful natural barriers are very small and have the simplest design. The shafts and walls on the floor, "start-up" side are much more powerful and taller and have a more complex and perfect structure.

So, the height of the ramparts of Zvenigorod and Staritsa is about 8 m. The front slope of the rampart was always made steeper - usually at least 30 ° to the horizon, and the rear slope was slightly more gentle. The horizontal platforms at the top of the rampart were initially made narrow, as in the ramparts of the 11th - 12th centuries, but later, with the complication of the construction of the defensive walls, they reached a width of 8 - 9 m.

As before, the embankment of the rampart often lacked an internal timber frame; such are the purely earthen ramparts of Romanov and Ples. To fill the embankments, they used local soil, as dense as possible, sometimes even pure clay, as in the Novgorod fortress Kholm. In the absence of good soil, weaker materials were taken, even sand; such are the ramparts of the Pskov fortresses Vel'e, Kotelno, etc. Finally, where the soil was stony, the rampart was entirely poured out of stones, as was done in the Tiversky town.

Shafts with an internal wooden frame were also erected. Usually it was a log oak wall with short transverse cuts protruding to the rear side. Located under the very crest of the shaft, the wall came out to its surface. This type of frame is a simplification of the frames of the shafts of Russian fortresses of the XII century. and is known for the fortifications of Zvenigorod, Ruza, Vereya, Galich-Mersky, built around the turn of the XIV and XV centuries. In the ramparts of Kaluga and Vorotynsk, fortresses on the southern border of the Moscow principality, inclined frames were found, located not in the rear, but in the front part of the rampart, the slope of which they were supposed to strengthen. A horizontal berm was often left in front of large ramparts to prevent the rampart from sliding into the ditch.

Moats in the fortifications of the 14th - first half of the 15th century. usually wide and deep. They, as a rule, cut off the fortress from the floor side and were very important in the defense system. Cut natural ravines were often used as ditches. The ditches usually had a symmetrical profile with a wall slope of about 30 °. The escarpation of slopes was also widely used at this time.

The walls of the fortresses of North-Eastern Russia up to the end of the 15th century. were wooden. The only exception is the walls of the Moscow Kremlin, built of hewn stone in 1367-1368, when the oak walls, built about thirty years earlier, fell into disrepair. The wooden walls of the 14th century, apparently, did not differ much from the walls of an earlier time and were a single-row timber frame wall, fastened with short transverse cross-sections. In the upper part there was a platform for warriors covered with a parapet. Later, in connection with the improvement of stone throwers, the walls began to be made thicker, consisting not of one, but of two rows of logs. The thickening of the walls became necessary in the 15th century, when, next to the stone throwers, firearms - cannons - were included in the siege of fortresses.

To counteract the impact of stone cannonballs, they began to build walls from two or even three log walls with filling the space between them with earth or stones.

In fortifications of lesser military importance, and especially in small fortified settlements, for example, in boyar estates, simpler wooden walls of a pillar structure were built, where the basis was made up of pillars dug into the ground, in the grooves of which horizontal logs were reinforced. A wall of this type strengthened the boyar estate Khabarov town near Yuriev-Polsky.

The wooden walls of the fortresses of the Novgorod and Pskov lands were of the same type as in North-Eastern Russia; the evolution of their design is also similar. So, in the Novgorod fortress Kholm (XV century), the wall consisted of three log walls and had a total thickness of 2 1/2 m. However, in North-Western Russia already from the XIV century. stone fortresses are being built quite widely. The beginnings of this tradition date back to the 12th - 13th centuries, when stone fortifications were built in Ladoga and Koporye. In the XIV and XV centuries. Here, an intensive stone defensive construction began: stone walls appeared in Novgorod and Pskov (both in Detinets and in the roundabout town), as well as stone fortresses Porkhov, Ostrov, Oreshek, Izborsk, Yam (Fig. 14). In the Pskov fortress Velie, built in the 14th century, half of the city walls were made of stone.

14. Izborsk fortress. Tower Tower. XV century

It is important to note that if the construction of stone towers in Western Volyn is associated with the influence of Polish and Hungarian architecture, then in the Novgorod and Pskov stone fortresses there are no traces of foreign influence. The formation of a stable tradition of stone defensive construction here is obviously explained by the long-established methods of the local engineering "school", as well as by the abundance of deposits of limestone slabs in this area.

Some of the stone fortifications of the Novgorod and Pskov lands have survived to this day. True, most of them were later overhauled, but the Porkhov Fortress in 1387, only partially altered in 1430, has survived almost entirely. The Izborsk fortress, despite several stages of reconstruction, mainly belongs to the middle of the 15th century.

In the stone fortresses of Northwestern Russia, as well as in the wooden ones, the sides facing the river or steep slopes are adapted to defense with the help of frontal firing and therefore are devoid of towers. All towers are located where an assault was possible and where, therefore, there was a need for flanking shelling of the walls. Stone walls of the 14th - first half of the 15th century. had different thickness: in the most critical areas on the floor side of the fortress - up to 3 - 4 m, and in other areas - 1 1/2 - 2 m. Already in the first half of the 15th century. stone walls are often reinforced with additional stone butts, which is caused by the use of large-caliber cannons during a siege. Stone battlements were erected in the upper part of the walls, and behind them was a wooden platform for soldiers. Both wooden and stone walls were usually roofed.

In military architecture of the XIV - first half of the XV century. in contrast to the previous period, towers play an important role; but these are not observation towers and not for circular fire, located inside the fortress, but for flanking the walls. They protruded slightly forward from the plane of the walls and were mainly located where the walls changed their direction, that is, at the corners of the fortress. The locations of the towers are often easily identified by the rounded expansions of the earthen ramparts on which the towers stood. So, for example, the locations of the towers in Staritsa, Romanov, Vyshegorod on Protva, Vyshegorod on Yakhroma and a number of other fortifications of the XIV-XV centuries are clearly visible. Towers at this time were usually called archers, and in the Pskov land - bonfires.

Unfortunately, the structure of the towers themselves is less clear. It is known that rectangular and multifaceted (in stone architecture - round) towers were used simultaneously. Several stone towers of the late 14th - first half of the 15th century have survived to this day. in Porkhov, Izborsk, and, perhaps, also in Korel. The square (so-called Small) tower in Porkhov was built together with the fortress in 1387 and survived without significant alterations (Fig. 15). It is divided into four tiers with beamed ceilings. (bridges), the thickness of its walls is 1.4 m. The rest of the towers of the Porkhov Fortress have a semicircular shape in plan; they were reconstructed in 1430, while the thickness of their walls was increased to 4 m. The loopholes in the towers of the Porkhov fortress are very narrow and still poorly suited for installing cannons in them, the Towers of the Izborsk fortress are much better suited for this purpose: their loopholes have an internal the sides are significantly widened, like chambers, where the guns were placed.

15. Small tower of the Porkhov fortress. 1387 BC

It became very complicated in the XIV-XV centuries. the device of the fortress gates. Of course, in the fortifications of secondary importance, the gates were quite simple, they had the character of a gate tower, as in the fortifications of the 12th - 13th centuries. However, in more powerful and perfect fortresses, they began to build complex entrance devices. First of all, the entrance itself to the fortresses of the XIV - first half of the XV century. they were often placed not in the floor wall of the fortress (as was usually done before), but in one of its lateral sides. The side exposed to the assault had no gates. Thus, even the approach to the gate already presented certain difficulties. In addition, instead of a simple gate, they began to build jaws- special devices in front of the gates, which are like small narrow corridors between the fortress walls. Very often, a tower was erected at the beginning of such a hassle.

In order to get inside the fortification, it was necessary to go through the gate, then through the zhab and, finally, through the second, inner gate. This entire path was under the control of the defenders of the fortress and was completely shot through. Wooden captive devices have not survived, but several such entrances are known in stone fortresses - in Porkhov, Ostrov, Izborsk, Pskov.

In the XV century. the gate began to be reinforced with lowering gratings blocking the passage. These gratings were made of iron or wood, but upholstered with iron. The chamber for the lifting device of such a lattice is well preserved, for example, in the Porkhov fortress.

Bridges were thrown across the moat in front of the gates. As before, they were wooden, rather narrow, resting on pillars. Drawbridges in Russia were not built until the end of the 15th century.

In addition to one or several gates, fortresses usually had additional secret exits - out... Outside, these gates were camouflaged with a wooden wall or earthen embankment, and in stone fortresses they were covered with a thin stone wall folded flush with the outer surface of the fortress wall, so that the enemy could not find the exit from the outside. These secret exits were used during the siege for surprise attacks. The remains of such vylasov survived in the Izborsk and Porkhov fortresses.

One of the most important tasks was to provide the fortresses with water in case of a siege. Until the 15th century. this problem was solved in two ways - either they dug a well inside the fortress (sometimes it was made very deep), or, in anticipation of the siege, they stored water in barrels. Since the XV century. began to build special devices for water supply - hiding places... They were underground corridors leading from the fortress along the side of the hill down to a level where a well could be easily dug. These corridors were made relatively shallow, but then they were covered with a roof, covered with earth and carefully camouflaged so that the enemy could not find the cache during the siege. The remains of the hiding places were preserved in Izborsk, in Koporye, in the small Moscow town of Kremensk and in some other fortresses.

* * *

The strategic organization of the country's defense in the XII, XIII and XIV centuries. was, oddly enough, less organized than in the XI century. The process of the feudal fragmentation of the country not only made it impossible to improve the defense of the borders in comparison with the system of Kievan Rus, but, on the contrary, even eliminated what had already been created in this respect. If in the XI, and partially also in the XII century, in South Russia there was an agreed system of defense of the territory from the side of the steppe, then later each principality built the defense of its borders independently. And since in the XIII century. the fragmentation of lands continued, the boundaries of individual principalities remained extremely uncertain.

When in the XIV century. the process of unification of the Russian lands around Moscow began, the opportunity arose to more deliberately build the organization of the defense of the territory. True, the boundaries of the Moscow principality changed frequently, since its territory grew rapidly and continuously. Therefore, the only possibility was not to strengthen the borders themselves, but to build and strengthen fortresses in the main directions along which the enemy could move towards Moscow. So, in the western direction, Mozhaisk acquired particular importance, and in the southern direction - Serpukhov, standing at the crossing over the Oka, where the Tatars usually passed when they went to Moscow. Kolomna played an important role in the southeast direction. Generally in the Moscow principality in the XIV and especially in the XV century. vigorous construction of new cities and the strengthening of old ones were carried out. A large number of cities were one of the important factors that ensured the relative security of the territory of the growing Moscow principality. Only one border of this principality remained more or less unchanged - the border with the Tver land. The main stronghold here was the city of Dmitrov.

The borders of the Tver principality were somewhat more stable than those of Moscow. Tver was almost continuously at enmity with Moscow and feared an invasion of Moscow troops; in addition, from the same side, the invasion of the Tatars could threaten. Therefore, a large number of fortresses were located on the southeastern border of the Tver principality with the Moscow one.

The organization of the defense of the Novgorod and Pskov lands was structured somewhat differently. Despite the fact that relations between Novgorod and Moscow were far from always friendly and sometimes it came to direct military clashes, there were very few fortresses on the Novgorod border from Moscow. Novgorod and Pskov paid the greatest attention to strengthening their western borders (from the side of the German Order) and southern (from Lithuania). It was here that all the most powerful Novgorod and Pskov fortresses were concentrated. At the same time, despite the complete political independence of Pskov from Novgorod in the 15th century. and even military conflicts between them, there were almost no fortresses on the Novgorod-Pskov border. Moreover, the fortresses intended for protection against the German Order were built by the Novgorodians only where the Novgorod lands had a direct border with the Order lands. In the same place where the Pskov territory lay between the Order and Novgorod lands, the Novgorodians did not build fortresses, apparently assuming that the Pskov fortresses reliably cover them from this side.

* * *

In the XIV - XV centuries. the construction of fortifications still fell on the shoulders of the feudally dependent population. City affairs as one of the most difficult types of feudal duty is mentioned in many documents of this period. Only in Novgorod and Pskov, where the commodity economy was highly developed, hired labor was often used to build stone fortifications. However, the main work on the construction of ramparts and ditches was also carried out by feudal dependent peasants.

The leadership of the construction of fortifications, as before, lay with the representatives of the princely administration, military engineering specialists, who were called townspeople, or townships... They not only supervised the construction of new ones, but also oversaw the maintenance and repair of existing fortifications. Usually the city dwellers were local landowners and occupied a prominent position in the city.

Such huge defensive structures, which were built in the era of Kievan Rus, in the XIV - the first half of the XV centuries. were no longer erected, but the construction of many fortifications remained still a very laborious task. So, the construction of the stone Moscow Kremlin in the 60s of the XIV century, carried out within one year, was supposed to take at the same time almost two thousand people. Of course, the construction of not all fortresses was so expensive and laborious. Small boyar estate of the 15th century Khabarov town could be built in one season by an artel of about 15 people.

The architectural and artistic appearance of the fortifications is also undergoing significant changes. Until the XIII century. the ring of the fortress walls had a more or less uniform rhythm, and therefore the city did not have one, "main" facade. The only accent was the gate tower, marking the significance of the entrance to the city. Since the XIV century. the city receives one, highlighted and accentuated, facade. The floor side acquired special significance not only from a military, but also from an artistic point of view, which was emphasized by the intense rhythm of the towers concentrated here. Almost in all the preserved fortresses of the XIV - XV centuries. there are, however, scanty, but purely decorative elements - ornamental stripes, crosses, etc. Without violating the general harsh impression of the mighty walls and towers, these decorative motifs indicate that the fortress builders were interested not only in the military, but also in the artistic significance of their structures ...

RUSSIAN CENTRALIZED STATE

New major changes in Russian military engineering took place in the second half of the 15th century. With the development and improvement of firearms, the tactics of siege and defense of fortresses changed significantly again, and after that the fortress structures themselves changed.

Appearing for the first time in Russia in the 80s or, more likely, in the 70s of the XIV century, artillery at first was little superior in its military-tactical qualities to stone-throwing machines. However, in the future, guns began to gradually displace stone throwers, which had a very significant impact on the forms of fortifications. Early cannons were used mainly in defense, and in this regard, already at the beginning of the 15th century. the rebuilding of the fortress towers began so that it was possible to install weapons in them (at first they were not placed on the city walls, but only in the towers). The increasingly active role of artillery in the defense led to the need to increase the number of towers on the floor side of the fortresses.

However, the guns were used not only in defense, but also in the siege of fortifications, for which they began to make large-caliber guns. In this regard, in the first half of the 15th century. it turned out to be necessary to strengthen the walls of the fortresses. At the stone walls, they began to make stone attachments from the floor side.

All these changes, caused by the use of firearms and the development of siege technology in general, at first did not at all affect the general organization of the defense of fortresses. On the contrary, the tactical scheme of "one-sided" defense acquires a more pronounced character with the use of cannons. The range of both stone throwers and early cannons was very small, and therefore sufficiently wide natural ravines and steep slopes still served as a reliable guarantee that an assault could not be feared from here.

Only by the middle of the 15th century. the power of firearms began to surpass stone throwers so much that cannons became the main means of sieging fortresses. Their firing range has increased significantly; they could now be installed on the other side of a wide ravine or river, and even below - at the base of a hillside. Natural barriers are becoming less and less reliable. Now the assault, supported by artillery fire, was already possible from all sides of the fortress, regardless of their coverage by natural obstacles. In this regard, the general organization of the defense of the fortresses is also changing.

The possibility of storming the fortress from all sides forced the builders to provide its entire perimeter with flanking fire from the towers - the most effective means of repelling the storm. Therefore, the "one-sided" system gives way to a more perfect one: the flanking shelling of all walls was now provided with an even distribution of towers along their entire length. Since that time, the towers have become the nodes of the circular defense of the fortress, and the sections of the walls between them (spun) begin to straighten to facilitate their flanking fire (see table, V).

Differentiation of the artillery itself made it possible to select the weapons most appropriate to the tasks of the defense. So, above the gates, a "mattress" was usually installed, beating with a "shot", that is, buckshot, and in the remaining towers, cannons were usually placed, firing cannonballs.

The logical conclusion of this evolution of fortresses is the creation of "regular", rectangular cities with towers at the corners. The first such fortresses are known in the Pskov land, where in the second half of the 15th century. in close cooperation with Moscow, the construction of defensive structures was carried out to strengthen the western border of the Russian state. Thus, the Pskov fortresses Volodimirets and Kobyla, built in 1462, have a rectangular plan scheme with towers at two opposite corners. A similar scheme was also used in the Gdovsk fortress, which was probably built even earlier. Finally, in a perfectly completed form, the new defense scheme is expressed in the Ivangorod fortress, erected by the Moscow government on the border with the Order in 1492. This fortress was originally a square of stone walls with four corner towers (Fig. 16).

16. Fortress Ivangorod. 1402. Reconstruction by V.V. Kostochkin.

Fortresses that are square or rectangular in plan with towers at the corners (and sometimes also in the middle of the long sides of the rectangle) have since become widespread in Russian military architecture (see Table, VI). So they were built in the XVI century. Tula, Zaraysk. A variant of this scheme, which possessed all its merits, was a triangular fortress; a pentagonal shape was also used. So, among the fortresses built under Ivan the Terrible in the Polotsk land, some had a triangular plan (Krasny, Kasyanov), others had a rectangular plan (Turovlya, Susha), and others in the form of a trapezoid (Sitna). Towers towered at all corners of these wooden fortresses, providing protection from either side.

The correct geometric shape of the fortresses was the most perfect, most fully meeting the tactical requirements of that time. But in a number of cases, the natural conditions of the area forced the construction of fortifications of an irregular shape. However, in these fortresses, the towers are evenly distributed along the walls along the entire perimeter, and the sections of the walls between the towers are straightened. Such are, for example, stone fortresses in Nizhny Novgorod and Kolomna, as well as wooden fortresses in Toropets, Belozersk, Galich-Mersky. All of them date back to the end of the 15th - first half of the 16th century.

In the same way, it was impossible to give the correct geometric shape to those fortresses that were created earlier and only reconstructed in the second half of the 15th - early 16th centuries. due to the development of new military engineering requirements. In such fortresses, the restructuring mainly consisted of creating towers at a more or less uniform distance from one another and in straightening sections of the walls between the towers. True, in a number of cases the changes turned out to be so significant that the fortresses had to be rebuilt entirely. This is how many fortresses of the Novgorod land were rebuilt by the Moscow government, for example, in Ladoga and Oreshka.

* * *

Significant changes in Russian military architecture in the second half - the end of the 15th century. reflected not only in the layout of the fortresses, but also in their designs.

The development of artillery gave the fortress builders a number of new technical tasks... First of all, it was necessary to erect walls capable of withstanding the blows of cannonballs. The most radical solution was the construction of stone walls. And indeed, if in the XIV - XV centuries. stone "castles" were built only in the Novgorod and Pskov lands, and in North-Eastern Russia only the Moscow Kremlin remained stone, then from the end of the 15th century. the construction of stone fortresses begins throughout the territory of the Russian land. Thus, the transition to stone-brick defensive structures was caused by internal development Russian military engineering art, primarily by the addition of new tactics with the widespread use of guns in siege and defense. However, some forms and details of brick fortresses are associated with the influence of Italian masters who took part in the construction of the Moscow Kremlin in the late 15th - early 16th centuries.

Despite the fact that stone and brick fortresses were received from the end of the 15th century. much more than before, distribution, nevertheless, the main type in Russia, and at this time wooden defensive structures continued to remain.

In those fortresses that had little military significance, the walls were still built in the form of a single-row log wall, and sometimes even more simplified from horizontal logs taken into the grooves of pillars dug into the ground. However, in more important fortresses, the walls were made more powerful, consisting of two or three parallel log walls, the space between which was covered with earth. Such wood-earth walls could withstand the blows of cannonballs no worse than stone ones. For the construction of the loopholes of the lower battle in these walls, at certain distances from one another, log cabins not covered with earth were located, used as chambers for weapons (Fig. 17). This design of wooden walls was called tarasami and had many options. In the upper parts of the walls, as before, there were combat platforms for warriors. There were also some kind of combat devices - rollers: logs that are stacked so that they can be easily thrown down at any time. Falling from the walls and rolling down the slope of the ramparts, such logs swept away the soldiers who stormed the fortress on their way.

17. Defensive wall of the Russian city of the 15th - 16th centuries. Reconstruction of the author

About the arrangement of towers at the end of the 15th and 16th centuries. can be judged by the surviving towers of stone fortresses. They were somewhat different from the earlier ones. Along with the beamed ceilings, they began to make vaulted ones. The shape of the loopholes has especially changed: they opened inward with large chambers in which cannons were installed (Fig. 18); their holes began to expand outward for more convenient aiming of the cannon barrels. Like the walls, the towers ended in battlements. The teeth in most cases were carried out on the brackets forward from the surface of the walls. This made it possible to conduct a mounted battle, that is, to shoot from the upper platform of the tower not only forward, but also down - into the gaps between the brackets or into special, downward-directed combat holes. On some towers, observation towers were set up to observe the surroundings. All towers were covered with wooden hipped roofs.

18. Interior view of the Gate Tower of the Ladoga Fortress. Late 15th - early 16th century

At that time, they stopped building complex gripping devices at the entrances, but the entrances were reinforced with the help of a special second gate tower - diverter arrow, which was placed on the outside of the ditch.

Thus, to enter the fortress, one had to go through the gate in the outer tower, then over the bridge over the moat and, finally, through the inner gate located in the gate tower itself. At the same time, the passage through it was sometimes made not straight, but curved at a right angle.

Bridges over ditches were built both on supports and lifting bridges. Drawbridges, which began to be used at that time, significantly strengthened the defense of the gate: when raised, they not only made it difficult to cross the moat, but also blocked the gate passage. They continued to use the lowering grilles that blocked the passage.

At the end of the 15th century. significant improvements were made to the water supply system of the fortresses. The caches leading to the wells were now usually arranged so that they went into one of the towers of the fortress, which stood closest to the river. Therefore, in the fortresses of the late 15th and 16th centuries. one of the towers is often called the Secret Tower.

* * *

As already noted, the most characteristic of Russian military architecture of the late 15th and 16th centuries. fortifications that had in the plan rectangular shape... Having formed under the direct influence of new military conditions, these fortresses were later recognized as the most perfect not only militarily, but also artistically. No wonder in Russian literature the ideal, fairytale city began to be depicted as a "regular", rectangular fortress with towers at the corners. However, due to the current circumstances, the largest and most perfect monument of Russian military architecture of the late 15th - early 16th centuries. the fortress became not such an ideal scheme; it was the Moscow Kremlin.

The initial fortifications of the Moscow Kremlin belonged to the late 11th - early 12th centuries. and had a cape scheme typical for this time: the hill, located at the confluence of the Moscow and Neglinnaya rivers, was cut off from the floor side by a rampart and a ditch.

In the second half of the XII century. The Kremlin was somewhat enlarged on the outdoor side; its original shaft and moat were dug out and replaced with more powerful ones.

Subsequently, the Kremlin enlargement, which was carried out several times, consisted in the destruction of the floor wall of the old fortification and the construction of a new one, located farther than the old one from the end of the cape. Thus, the promontory scheme of the fortification was not disturbed, and its two sides were still protected by the coastal slopes of the Moscow and Neglinnaya rivers. So the Kremlin was rebuilt in 1340 and then again in 1367 - 1368.

Unlike the Kremlin fortifications of the XII century. during the reconstruction of the XIV century. the fortress acquired a "one-sided" organization of the defense system, with towers concentrated on the outdoor side. The fortifications of 1367 were no longer built of wood, but of stone. The perimeter of the Kremlin walls has reached almost 2 km; it had eight or nine towers. According to the white-stone Kremlin, the people called the entire Russian capital "white-stone Moscow" (Fig. 19, above).

19. Above - the Moscow Kremlin at the end of the XIV century. Painting by A. Vasnetsov; below - the Moscow Kremlin at the end of the 15th - beginning of the 16th centuries. Painting by A. Vasnetsov

The stone fortress of Moscow has existed for about 100 years. During this time, it has become dilapidated and has ceased to meet the requirements of modern military engineering tactics. Meanwhile, Moscow by this time had become the capital of a huge and powerful centralized state. Both its military significance and political prestige required the creation of new, completely modern fortifications here. At the end of the 15th - beginning of the 16th century. The Kremlin was completely rebuilt (Fig. 19, below). Its construction was carried out gradually, in sections, so that the center of Moscow would not remain devoid of fortifications for a single year. Italian craftsmen were involved in the construction, among whom the leading role was played by the Milanese Pietro Antonio Solari.

In the construction of the Moscow Kremlin, carried out on a huge scale, the achievements of both Russian and Italian military engineering art of that time were used. As a result, it was possible to create a powerful fortress, which amazed contemporaries with its beauty and grandeur and had a great influence on the further development of Russian fortress building. The brick walls of the Moscow Kremlin were equipped on the inside with wide semicircular arched niches, which made it possible, with a significant thickness of the walls, to place loopholes in the plantar (lower) tier of the battle in them. Designed for both cannons and hand-held firearms, they sharply increased the activity of the rifle defense of the fortress. Outside, the walls had a high plinth, ending with a decorative roller. Instead of wide rectangular battlements, the walls of the Moscow Kremlin were crowned with narrow two-horned battlements in the shape of the so-called dovetail (Fig. 20). Shooting from the top of the city walls was carried out either through the gaps between the battlements, or through narrow loopholes in the battlements themselves. Both the walls themselves and the battle passages on them were covered with a wooden roof.

20. Wall of the Moscow Kremlin

As a result of the construction, one of the largest and most perfect European fortresses was created - the Kremlin that has survived to this day. Of course, the modern look of the Moscow Kremlin is very different from the original; all its towers were in the 17th century. decorative towers were built on, the moat was filled up, most of the archers were destroyed. But the main part of the Kremlin walls and towers belongs to the construction of the late 15th - early 16th centuries.

The length of the walls of the Moscow Kremlin was now 2.25 km; the walls consisted of two brick walls with internal limestone backfilling. The thickness of the walls reached from 3 1/2 to 4 1/2 m with a height of 5 to 19 m. The Kremlin had 18 towers, including the gate. On both sides it, as before, was defended by rivers, and from the ground, a moat was dug and lined with stone, filled with water and having a depth of about 8 m and a width of almost 35 m.Only one of the three diversion arrows survived in a heavily altered form - the tower Kutafya (fig. 21). The passage through this tower was made with a turn at right angles to make it difficult for the enemy to advance in the event of an assault.

21. The Kutafya Tower is a diversion arrow of the Moscow Kremlin. Late 15th - early 16th century Reconstruction by M. G. Rabinovich and D. N. Kulchinsky

The uniform distribution of the towers along the entire perimeter of the Kremlin and the straightness of the wall sections between them made it possible to conduct flanking shelling at any part of the fortress. Created according to the latest military engineering technology of that time, the Moscow Kremlin served as a model that was imitated (mainly not in the general scheme, but in architectural details) during the construction of most Russian fortresses in the 16th century.

* * *

Major changes took place in the second half of the 15th century. and in defense strategy. They were caused by the addition of the centralized Russian state. The independence of Ryazan, Tver and other lands was completely eliminated, Veliky Novgorod was subordinated. By the same time, small feudal estates also ceased to exist. Therefore, the need for frontier fortresses on the borders between various Russian lands disappeared. The consolidated administrative apparatus could now ensure the management of the entire land without erecting fortified posts in each administrative district. Rather, on the contrary, fortresses in the inner part of the state territory have now become undesirable, since they could be used as strongholds in the attempts of individual feudal lords to rebel against state power. Therefore, the overwhelming majority of fortified points located far from state borders by the end of the 15th century. lost its defensive significance: some of them by this time had grown into large urban-type settlements, others turned into villages, and others were abandoned altogether. In all cases, their defenses have ceased to be renewed. They turned into settlements.

Only those fortresses that played an essential role in the defense of national borders retained their military significance. They were reinforced, rebuilt, and adapted to new military-tactical requirements (Fig. 22). At the same time, depending on the weapons and tactics of the enemy, the border fortifications on different sections of the border had a completely different character. On the western borders of Russia, an invasion of well-organized armies, equipped with artillery and all kinds of siege equipment, could be expected. Therefore, Russian cities on this border had to have powerful defensive structures. On the southern and eastern borders, the military situation was completely different. These lines had to be secured against sudden and rapid attacks by the Tatars, who, however, did not have artillery. Naturally, a very large number of fortifications should have been built here in order to stop the invasion of enemies in time, as well as to shelter the population of the surrounding villages in these fortifications. At the same time, the fortresses themselves could not be very powerful.

22. Novgorod Kremlin. The walls and towers were completely rebuilt at the end of the 15th century. The high Kokuy tower was built on in the 17th century.

A completely new phenomenon in Russian military engineering was the attempt to create an interconnected system of defensive structures along the border line. In the XVI century. this led to the addition of continuous defensive lines on the southern Russian border - notch line... The protection of the notch line required, of course, a much larger number of troops and a greater organization of the garrison service and the notification service than the defense of individual fortified points. The significantly increased and more organized army of the Russian state was already able to provide such a reliable defense of the Russian borders from the side of the steppe.

CONCLUSION

The firing system is one of the most essential features of every defensive structure. The principle of modern fortification, stating that the most effective are those artificial obstacles that are supported by shooting, apparently, dates back to the most ancient times.

Indeed, all Russian defensive structures from the earliest times were designed to make it difficult for the enemy to get inside the fortification and to hold him in the most disadvantageous position, under fire from the defenders.

The basis of the defense of all ancient Russian fortresses was shooting from walls and towers, and the system of this shooting is inextricably linked with the system of organizing the defensive structures themselves, their planned structure and structures.

But both the shooting system and the general system of organizing the defense of fortresses were directly dependent on the development of the military-tactical principles of siege and defense. All aspects of this development process are closely interconnected: both the development of tactical techniques affects the forms of defensive structures, and, conversely, the development of the forms of these structures, in turn, affects the change in tactics.

At the same time, it can be noted that the more active, faster and earlier changing side is, obviously, tactics.

Of course, there is no doubt that the development of military engineering in general and the tactics of siege and defense in particular is not based on the creativity of genius commanders and city planners, but above all an independent, internal development process that ultimately depends on the productive forces.

But it would be wrong to reduce the influence of the productive forces only to their direct influence on military equipment and weapons. Of course, cases when the improvement of weapons has a direct impact on changing the shape of defensive structures are not uncommon. This was the case, for example, during the period of widespread use of stone throwers and especially during the growth of the power of firearms.

However, the development of weapons itself often turns out to be associated not directly with the development of technology, but with much deeper phenomena in the socio-economic life of the country.

Therefore, the influence of productive forces on the evolution of defensive structures in most cases can be traced only through a change in tactical techniques, in turn explained by changes in social relations.

Thus, the development of the productive forces for the most part affects serfdom in a very indirect way, as the effect of general social change, causing the same general changes in the organization of the army and methods of warfare.

The division of the history of ancient Russian military architecture into the main stages associated with radical changes in the defense organization scheme is the basis for the periodization of this history. But since this development of defense itself is associated with phenomena of a socio-economic nature, the periodization of the history of military architecture should largely correspond to general historical periodization. That is why the main periods in the history of ancient Russian military architecture, although they do not exactly coincide chronologically, on the whole correspond to the main periods of Russian history - the era of the formation of class society, the early feudal state, feudal fragmentation, and a feudal centralized state. The history of the development of Russian fortresses ultimately reflects the history of the Russian people.

TO THE MAIN PAGE OF THE SITE

All library materials are protected by copyright and are the intellectual property of their authors.

All library materials are obtained from publicly available sources or directly from their authors.

Placing materials in the library is their citation in order to ensure the safety and availability of scientific information, and not a reprint or reproduction in any other form.

Any use of library materials without reference to their authors, sources and library is prohibited.

The use of library materials for commercial purposes is prohibited.

Founder and curator of the RusArch library,

Academician of the Russian Academy of Arts

Since ancient times, the formation of a single Russian state took place in conditions of continuous struggle both in internecine wars and with external enemies: with the Tatar khanates, from where devastating raids on the eastern and southern outskirts of the country were carried out, and with the Western powers that sought to seize the border Russian lands and close access to the Baltic Sea.

Defensive architecture began with primitive shelters and, becoming more complex as society developed, gave a huge variety of forms that corresponded to the requirements of the time.

Construction methods and types of fortifications developed in close connection with the economy of the Russian state, knowledge and construction techniques. As a result, the erected strongholds have always been an indicator of the political, economic and military state of the Russian state of a certain period.

In ancient times, people used for dwelling inaccessible, usually hidden and convenient places for defense - islets, ravines, steep slopes, etc. Later, settlements began to be surrounded by a closed obstacle. Often they tried to use natural formations for this - water, swamps, rocky cliffs. At the same time, the experience of creating artificial obstacles developed. Such primitive defensive structures were the only means of defense among the Slavs until the middle of the 9th century. In the annals they are most often called spom, prispom, overspom, that is, all kinds of derivatives from the word "pour".

The first Russian earthen fences consisted of a rampart with a moat in front of it. Their defenses consisted in the considerable height of the rampart, the same depth of the ditch and the inaccessible steepness of the slopes. Up to our time, ramparts have been preserved, the height of which reaches 20 m, and ditches up to 10 m deep. If possible, the ditches were filled with water, and pointed stakes were driven into their bottom. This is how the Arab geographer Al-Bakri described the process of erecting fortifications:

“And in this way the Slavs build most of their fortresses: they go to the meadows, abundant waters and reeds, and mark there a round or quadrangular place, depending on the shape they want to give the fortress, and by its size they dig a ditch around it, and dump the dug earth into the rampart, reinforcing it with boards and piles like broken earth, until the wall reaches the desired height. And then the door is measured, whichever side they want, and they approach it along a wooden bridge. "

Zahab- the old Russian name for a fortification designed to protect the fortress gates. It is believed that the word "zhab" comes from the ancient Russian "ohaben" - "sleeve". Usually the zhab was a long, narrow corridor between the fortress walls, which could be located both outside the fortress and inside. There was an outer gate at the entrance to this corridor. Having broken through them, the enemy was trapped and suffered heavy losses in the crossfire.

Around the X century. On the crest of the earthen rampart, they began to install wooden walls made of logs tightly fitted to each other, called tyna or fence. Abundant material for their arrangement was provided by the vast forests of ancient Russia. Over time, they began to erect wooden wreath-type fences. The latter consisted of log cabins (gorodny) - two log walls, crowned in front with a smaller frame, forming a parapet or parapet, in which both simple loopholes were made for shelling the terrain in front, and hinged ones - for shelling the foot of the fence. On the top of the walls, made up of gorodni, there was a rather wide area, which was covered by a wooden fence on the outside from enemy arrows and stones - a visor, or a fence. Sometimes the word “fence” was used to denote the entire fortress wall. Through the loopholes made in the walls - narrow slots for shooting - the defenders repelled the enemy's attacks.

Since the unconnected walls were often destroyed, then already in the XI century. they began to be replaced with wooden walls chopped with taras. They consisted of two interconnected walls, the gap between which was filled with earth and stones. The thickness of such walls could be up to 7 m, which allowed defenders to move freely along them. When talking about the construction of this type of fence, chroniclers often use the expression "cut down the city." Often, wooden walls were reinforced with artificial obstacles: tynom, nadolbami, part and garlic. The tyn (or palisade) was placed at the bottom of the ditch in one or two rows. The back wall could be "standing" (straight) or "oblique" (inclined inward). Nadolby - thick, pointed stakes - were located beyond the outer edge of the ditch. A piece or palisade was the name given to pointed stakes hammered between the wall and the moat, as well as in front of the tyn placed in the moat or between the pillars. Garlic - the same piece, but made of iron, was located separately or in conjunction with a tyn, placed in a ditch, and nadolbami. Usually camouflaged with leaves or loose earth.

Around the same period, the walls began to be strengthened with towers, which in Russia until the 16th century. called vezha, pillars, bonfires (from the Latin word "castrum" - "castle") or strelnitsa. They were made square in plan (in the words of the chroniclers - "cut into 4 walls") or hexagonal, in several floors, the number of which could be as high as west. The height of the wooden towers, as a rule, ranged from 6 to 14 m. The towers were intended for observation , ensuring the longitudinal shelling of the fortress walls, the approaches to them and the protection of the gates, served as a shelter for the troops and a strong point of defense. They were divided into two types: travel and deaf (spy). The former also defended the gate, the latter served to monitor the remote area. Deaf towers were cut by higher ones, and they ended in a guardhouse with a roof called a watchtower. Shooting holes were made in the walls, the so-called windows and loopholes. Usually blind towers were located at the corners of the fence, and travel towers were located at its long rectilinear sections, protruding from behind the wall by 2-3 m.

To create a score line, a strip of forest 40-60 m wide of trees with a diameter of at least 15 cm was cut down at the height of a man's height so that the tree trunks were kept on the stump and fell in rows or criss-cross, tops towards the enemy.

The predominance of wooden fortresses in Russia was explained not only by military, but also by economic reasons. The construction of a stone fortification was extremely difficult, while the construction of a timber-earth fortress on the basis of log structures was of little cost in terms of cost and labor. However, in the regions in contact with Europe, stone fortresses prevailed.

Stone walls on Russian soil began to be erected in the first half of the 11th century. Some of the first stone fences appeared in Kiev (founded by Yaroslav in 1037), the Novgorod Kremlin, Kitay-gorod (Moscow), Kolomna, Porkhov, Pskov and Smolensk. Usually such walls were erected from natural stones or from bricks, sometimes from mixed materials: either the lower part was made of stone and the rest was made of brick, or the walls were built of stone and then faced with brick. The strong foundation withstood a heavy load, so the height of the stone walls reached 15 m. The upper outer part of the wall was made in the form of battlements, which made it possible to shell the space in front of the fortress.

The stone walls were also reinforced with towers - passable and blind. According to their external outline, they were not only square, rectangular, polygonal, but also round, semicircular, and also irregular shape... The height of the stone towers could reach 40 m.

In the 13th century, during the Mongol yoke, the development of Russian fortification art was practically stopped. But the development of siege technology has advanced quite significantly. The Mongols adopted the methods of building battering guns and methods of storming fortified cities, based on successive attacks using a set of measures to overcome the enemy's defenses.

It should be clarified that the concept of "fortress" began to be used in Russian official acts starting from the 17th century. and it meant a strengthening that enhances the defensive properties of a site or settlement... Sometimes in the chronicles the word “fortress” was replaced by the word “support” (or “crepe”), meaning an artificial barrier.

The fortified points, which served as the ancestors of the fortresses, in ancient Russia were called cities, towns, jails and forts. A city was usually a settlement surrounded by a powerful defensive system. Fortified settlements, small in size, were called towns or gorodts. Ostrog are fortified points surrounded by weaker fences, most often a tyn. They were located on the borders with peoples with little skill in military affairs.

In the XVI and XVII centuries. the number of cities in the Moscow state has approximately doubled.

Ravelins are triangular buildings installed in front of the curtain - a section of the fortress fence located between two adjacent bastions or between two towers.

It took a year or a year and a half to erect them, and towns and forts were cut down within a few months. The work was usually supervised by two governors. They strictly controlled the exact correspondence of the building to the drawings of the Discharge Order, as well as the construction costs according to the estimate.

As a rule, the center of the Russian city was Detinets (later - the Kremlin, or less often Krom). The name “detinets” is associated with the words “to put”, “to put”, that is, to “cover”. This was the most fortified place, where, when the enemy attacked, the inhabitants hid everything that was dear to them: children, wives, elders. The word "Kremlin" came to Russia from the Tatars and meant "fortress".

Usually cities had only one fence, but could be divided by defensive structures into parts, which were also called cities. So, for example, Moscow consisted of the Kremlin, Kitai-gorod, White City, Zemlyanoy Gorod, and Pskov consisted of the Kremlin, the Middle City, the Big City and Zapskovye. In addition, the cities of the XVI-XVII centuries. almost always had a fortified settlement, as well as settlements. The fortifications of the settlements usually did not differ in complexity and consisted of earthen ramparts, ditches and wooden walls (palisades). Naturally, the settlements were not designed for a long-term siege and were intended to shelter from small enemy detachments plundering the surroundings. In case of danger, the inhabitants of the settlements hid in the posad or the Kremlin.

Since the forts usually had little strategic importance, they were erected only from wood. Basically, these were fortifications of a rectangular plan, with a back fence, four blank towers at the corners and one pass. Most often, such defensive structures were erected on the outskirts of the state and in Siberia. The simplest type of prison was an object surrounded by a fence made of sharpened logs - “tynom”. The construction of new forts was carried out very quickly. On small stockades, work was carried out for 2-3 weeks, on large ones - for 1.5-2 months. Among the fortified objects built by the Russians during the expansion in Siberia, there were also winter huts. They were a low wooden hut with bunks and a stove, surrounded by a palisade. Over time, with the construction of a rectangular fence made of tyna with one or several towers, the winter quarters became a prison. By the way, in the second half of the 16th century. many jails in Russia and Siberia began to be used as prisons, and the meaning of this word changed significantly. The prisoners of this time were even called prisoners. In the XIX century. the prison finally becomes synonymous with a prison surrounded by a wall.

As already noted, during all periods of the existence of the Russian state, special attention was paid to the defense of the borders. Since the threat of attack existed from different sides and, moreover, from opponents at different stages of development, this influenced the methods of creating defensive facilities. Separate fortified cities-fortresses were erected on the western borders, and in the east and south, to protect against the raids of the Mongol-Tatar and Crimean troops, they created continuous lines of fortifications - guard lines. They began to be used from the 13th century, but special development such defensive systems received in the XVI-XVII centuries.

In open areas, the guard line usually consisted of an earthen rampart and a ditch. In areas covered with forest and shrubbery, heaps of felled trees, called notch lines (lines), were created. Zaseki significantly impeded the movement of infantry and cavalry.

Behind the guard lines, as a rule, on strategically important roads, cities, towns and forts were erected. Here the military men (border guard guard) and the commanding staff settled: the scout clerks, governors and heads. To maintain the watch line in proper condition, a special serif tax was introduced in the Russian state.

The most powerful watch line was the Big notch line, the construction of which was completed in 1566. It was part of the general defense system of the Russian state and consisted of fortified fortified cities (in 1630 there were more than forty), separate fortified areas - notches - and natural obstacles: dense forests, rivers, lakes, swamps and ravines. The fortified cities of Tula, Likhvin, Kozelsk, Venev, Odoev, Belev and others became the main strongholds in the defense system of the Great Zasechnaya Line. The shortest route to Moscow, Muravsky Shlyakh, ran between Tula and Venev. It is no coincidence that this area was the most fortified. By the way, among the cities, the only stone fortress was Tula, which became the administrative and military center of the line. In the XVII century. in the main city, this defensive system became known as Tula.

Around the second half of the 16th century. in the long-term fortification construction of the Russian state, a qualitative shift took place. This was due to the emergence of firearms, which greatly influenced the appearance of the fortresses. The thickness of the walls and the diameter of the towers increased, which made it possible to accommodate several artillery pieces, while their height, on the contrary, decreased. Everywhere they began to erect geometrically correct in terms of fortifications with rectilinear wall sections. They could be erected not only on heights, but also on level places, without the obligatory connection with the terrain.

IN late XVII in. the fortresses with walls and towers were gradually replaced by defensive systems consisting of separate forts (from the Latin “fortis“ - “strong”, “strong”), located at the commanding heights. At first, they were created as separate fortifications in front of the already existing fortress fence, then as an integral part of a fortress or a field fortified position. Forts, being isolated, could support each other with fire. The gaps between the forts were defended by field troops. The enemy had to separately occupy each fort, and before several of them were not taken, the defenses could not be broken.

In the XVIII century. during the creation of Russian fortified objects, forts of two types were erected: open and closed. The first of them could have different configurations, but they were necessarily adapted for conducting a perimeter defense. Along the perimeter of such a fortification, about 1 km long, several rows of earthen ramparts were erected, in front of which a ditch was dug. Rifle cells were organized on the ramparts. Behind the ramparts, on the territory of the fort, artillery positions for several dozen guns were prepared. The garrison of the fort consisted of gun crews and rifle units stationed in shelters. Closed forts were built of stone, concrete, armored structures, etc. At first, they were built in the form of multi-tiered stone towers, armed with a large number of guns.

In the XIX century. began to create forts of the bastion system, consisting of several bastions (from Italian. "bastionato" - "protruding building"), each of which was designed for the installation of several dozen guns.

Between the forts there were concrete shelters, storage facilities and artillery batteries. Typically, the shelters were an overhead concrete bunker designed to house part of the fort's garrison. Inside, the bunker was divided into several rooms and had several entrances. The storages were made in the form of underground bunkers intended for storing ammunition and ammunition. The main purpose of the battery was to carry heavy artillery outside the fort. Most of the batteries were built on hilltops with steep slopes and good visibility. The battery was a semi-underground ammunition depot in the center and artillery positions of heavy howitzers located to the right and left of it.

In the course of further improvements of the bastion forts, in order to support the attacked bastions and strike the besiegers with side fire, they began to erect ravelins (from the Latin “revelere” - “to separate”).

In the so-called "Peter's times", another external fortification appeared near the Russian bastion fortress - the kronverk (from German "kronwerk" - "crown-shaped fortification").

Kronverk (from German "kronwerk" - "crown-like fortification") served to strengthen the fortress front and consisted of one bastion and two half-bastions on the sides, giving it the appearance of a crown, hence the name.

Kronverki well justified themselves in those cases when the haste of erecting fortifications in the absence of a stone made it necessary to compensate for the lack of strength of buildings by their number, and, consequently, by the depth of defense.

In the XIX century. in Russia there were more than a hundred fortresses, while 58 were included in the category of "regular fortresses". However, this term did not indicate either the strategic importance of the fortress or the degree of its defensive capability. Established fortresses were called those that were under the jurisdiction of the engineering department, and all the rest were non-standard.

Established fortresses were divided into classes - depending on the number of military buildings of the engineering department concentrated in them.

By the XX century. the number of Russian strongholds practically did not change. Instead of the fortifications removed due to dilapidation and lost their military-strategic importance, several dozen new fortresses appeared, including those erected at the end of the 19th century. in the territories that became part of the Russian state, and now located outside the borders of modern Russia. Forts, fortresses, monasteries that have survived to this day are under the protection of the state and are mainly used as museums. And this is no coincidence, since they are monuments of Russian material culture, urban planning, architecture and military engineering art.

In Russia, the word "city" was used to describe any fortified place surrounded by a fortress wall. The construction of defensive structures was vital, as it guaranteed protection from numerous external enemies. And oh, how foreigners loved to "run" into Russian cities!

Porkhovskaya fortress

One of the few surviving one-sided fortresses in the north-west of the country. Similar structures were erected in Russia from the middle of the 14th century to the end of the 15th century. Alexander Nevsky founded the Porkhov Fortress, as well as most of the entire defensive system of the Novgorod principality. For a long time, the fortress protected from the raids of the Lithuanians, who passionately wanted to capture both Novgorod and Pskov. Initially, the fortification was built of wood and earth. But already at the end of the XIV century, the Lithuanians increased the power of their attacks and their number so much that the Novgorodians urgently began to erect stone walls. It is curious that these walls are the first walls of a Russian fortress capable of withstanding the blows of gunpowder weapons. In the second half of the 18th century, the fortress was in such a state that, in order to protect the people from the stones falling out of the walls, it was decided to dismantle it. The fortress was saved, oddly enough, by bureaucratic red tape. Only "the most dangerous places" were dismantled. Today, a sample of Novgorod military architecture of the XIV-XV centuries is open to tourists.

Nizhny Novgorod fortress

In 1221, at the confluence of the Oka and Volga rivers, Prince Georgy Vsevolodovich founded a border fortress, which became the main defensive structure in the war with the Volga Bulgaria. Initially, the fortifications were made of wood and earthen, and the fortress had an oval shape. The main feature of the fortress was that it was built on uninhabited territory. Soon the fortress found itself in the center of the struggle between the Suzdal princes and the Mordovian tribes. However, this war could not compare with the misfortune that would fall upon Russia decades later - the country would plunge into the "Mongolian darkness." Nizhny Novgorod residents will repeatedly leave Novgorod at the mercy of the Tatars. The fortress will also be captured, however, it will happen in its "wooden" existence. In the future, along with the growth of the city, the expansion of the fortress will also take place: stone walls and the Dmitrievskaya gate tower will be built. The stone Nizhny Novgorod fortress will never be captured by the enemy, despite the fact that he will repeatedly appear under its walls.

Smolensk Kremlin

A remarkable example of the achievements of military engineering at the end of the 15th century - the Smolensk Fortress - was built according to the design of Fyodor Kon. Precious necklace of 38 towers, laid on the Dnieper hills - this is what this fortress is called today. It was built on the initiative of Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich, who sought to protect Smolensk from the Polish-Lithuanian invaders. The first stone in the foundation of the fortress was laid by Boris Godunov in 1595, and by 1602 the fortress had already been completed and consecrated. Its main feature was the ability to conduct a three-level battle. In 1609, the Smolensk fortress was able to withstand 20 months of the siege of the Polish king Sigismund III, in 1708 - it stopped the Swedish king Charles XII, who was marching to Moscow. In 1812, the French lost many soldiers at the walls of the Smolensk fortress, blowing up 8 fortress towers in revenge. Initially, the length of the fortress walls was equal to six and a half kilometers. Unfortunately, today there are sections of no more than three kilometers in length. The impressive sixteen-sided towers not only acted as a defensive structure, but also served as the face of the city, as they overlooked the Moscow road.

Ivangorod fortress

Ivan the Terrible ordered to build a fortress protecting the Russian borders from the Teutonic knights in 1492. The location was not chosen by chance: the fortress was erected opposite the Livonian fortress of Narva. Repeatedly Ivangorod then passed to the Swedes, then again returned to the Russians. In 1704, after the capture of Narva by the Russian troops, Ivangorod capitulated and was finally returned to Russia. The fortress was badly damaged during the Great Patriotic War. On its territory there were two concentration camps for Russian prisoners of war. Before the retreat, the Germans managed to blow up six corner towers, large sections of walls, a cache and buildings in the inner courtyard of the fortress. However, 10 towers with stone walls and the ancient Orthodox Church of Ivangorod in the Leningrad Region have been well preserved to this day.

Shlisselburg fortress

Founded at the source of the Neva on Orekhovy Island, the fortress received its second name - Oreshek. The construction was initiated in 1323 by the grandson of Alexander Nevsky, Yuri Danilovich. The fortress, built of wood at the age of 30, completely burned down, after which it was rebuilt from stone. After the annexation of Novgorod to the Moscow principality, the fortress was seriously strengthened, dismantled to the foundation and rebuilt along the perimeter of the entire island new defensive 12-meter walls with a thickness of 4.5 meters. The old rivals of Russia, the Swedes, repeatedly tried to take possession of the fortress, and in 1611 they succeeded. For 90 years, the Swedes ruled the fortress, which they called Noteburg. Only during the Northern War did it return to its old owners and was again renamed into Shlisselburg, or "Key City". Since the 18th century, the fortress has lost its defensive significance and has become a prison of ill fame and harsh order. For the slightest disobedience, the prisoners were expected to be executed, the prisoners died of consumption and tuberculosis. For all the time, no one managed to escape from the Shlisselburg fortress.

Peter-Pavel's Fortress

The plan of the Peter and Paul Fortress in 1703 was developed by Peter the Great himself (not without the help, of course, of the French engineer Joseph Lambert de Guerin). The fortress was built on the Hare Island and consisted of six bastions connected by fortress walls. Since 1730, the tradition of cannon shots has appeared, announcing the approach of noon. At the end of the 18th century, the Mint was built, where all coins, orders and medals were minted until the end of the 90s of the last century. Despite the fact that the fortress is a unique historical defensive structure and, as it were, “locks” the Neva, its walls have never seen an assault or siege. From the very beginning of its existence, it was given a different share - it became the main political prison of the country. One of the first to be imprisoned in it were Tsarevich Alexei, Princess Tarakanova, who claimed the throne, and a rebel "worse than Pugachev" Alexander Radishchev. At one time, the Decembrists, Narodnaya Volya, Petrashevists, including the young Dostoevsky, became prisoners of the fortress.