The energetic urban planning activity of the Russian state, due to the need to protect and advance its borders, caused shifts in planning technology. Throughout the 16th century these shifts affected mainly the fortified elements of the city - kremlins, prisons.

Previously, during the period of feudal fragmentation, the fortifications of the city were usually aimed at protecting the population and its wealth, concentrated within the walls. Fortresses thus played a passive role in the defense of the country. Now new fortresses are being built, and the old frontier towns are again being fortified as strongholds for sentry and stanitsa service and for accommodating troops, who, at the first signal, rush to the enemy who appeared near the border. The center of gravity of the defense is transferred from the fortress to the field, and the fortress itself becomes only a temporary shelter for the garrison, which needs protection only from a sudden attack.

In addition, the fortresses were not the objects of attack by the nomad robbers, whose main goal was to break through in any gap between the fortified points to the territory of peaceful settlements, plunder them, take away the prisoners and quickly hide in the "wild field". The steppe nomads could not and never tried to conduct a proper siege or destroy cities. However, quite often they dug a shaft in some place, cut through gouges and in other similar ways tried to get inside the fortress.

The rounded shape of the fortress with passive defense and primitive military equipment gave a number of advantages. It provided the largest capacity for a fortified point with the smallest defensive fence line and, therefore, required a minimum number of defenders on the walls. In addition, with a rounded shape, there were no so-called "dead" angles of fire.

With the transition from passive to active defense, with the development of firearms, with the device of peals and towers for flank shelling, the rounded shape of the fortress fence loses its advantages and preference is given to the quadrangular shape of the fortification, and with a significant size of the city - polygonal (polygonal). Although the configuration of the fortress is still greatly influenced by topographic conditions, now in each case the choice of a specific configuration is already a compromise between them and a quadrangle (or polygon), and not a circle or an oval, as it was before. At the end of the XV - beginning of the XVI centuries. the shape of a rectangle (or a regular polygon) is already clearly expressed in Russian urban planning.

In 1509, Tula, which shortly before passed to the Muscovite state, was rebuilt and re-fortified as an important strategic point on the outskirts of Moscow. The former fortified place on the Tulitsa River was abandoned, and on the left bank of the river. Upa, a new fortress was laid in the form of a double oak wall with cuts and towers. The new wooden fortress in general took the form of a crescent, leaning on its

ends on the river bank. But already five years later, in 1514, following the model of the Moscow Kremlin, the construction of an internal stone fortress was started, which was completed in 1521.

If the fortress wall of 1509 was only a fortified bypass of a populated area, then the stone fortress, in its clear, geometrically correct form, quite clearly expressed the idea of ​​​​a fortified container of the garrison, the idea of ​​\u200b\u200ba structure that has its own regularity and does not depend on local conditions. However, in the internal planning of the fortress, the rectangular - rectilinear system did not receive a complete development. This can be seen on the plan of its restoration (Fig. 1, appendix 1), this can also be judged by the different position of the gate in the longitudinal walls.

The geometric method of construction is more clearly expressed in the Zaraisk fortress (built in 1531), where not only the external configuration, but, apparently, the internal layout was subject to a certain mathematical design. In any case, the location of the gate along two mutually perpendicular axes makes us assume the presence of two corresponding highways (Fig. 2, Appendix 1). Samples of regular fortresses, only slightly deviating from the mathematically correct form, we see on the plans of some other cities. So, for example, a fortress in the form of a relatively regular trapezoid is visible on the plan of the city of Mokshan (now the district center of the Penza region), built in 1535 (Fig. 3, Appendix 1); a large trapezoid fortress is shown on the plan of the city of Valuyki (now center of the Kursk region), built in 1593 (Fig. 5, appendix 1). From the cities of the Volga region of the XVI century. the most regular shape (in the form of a rhombus) was obtained by the fortress of Samara (now the city of Kuibyshev), shown in fig. 4, appendix 1.

These few examples show that already in the first half of the 16th century. Russian town builders were familiar with the principles of "regular" fortification art. However, the construction of the fortresses of the Tula defensive line in the middle of the XVI century. carried on for the most part according to the old principle. The need to strengthen many points in the shortest possible time caused a desire to maximize the use of natural defensive resources (steep slopes of ravines, river banks, etc.) with a minimum addition of artificial structures.

As a rule, in cities built or reconstructed in the 16th century, the subordination of the form of a fortress to topographic conditions still dominated. This type of fortress also includes the fortifications of Sviyazhek, encircling a rounded “native” mountain in accordance with its relief (Fig. 6 and Fig. 7 Appendix 1).

Historical and social conditions of the XVI century. influenced the planning of the “residential” part of the new cities, i.e. for the planning of settlements and settlements.

It should be emphasized that the state, building new cities, sought to use them primarily as points of defense. The restless situation in the vicinity of cities prevented the creation of a normal agricultural base, which was necessary for their development as settlements. Cities on the outskirts of the state had to be supplied with everything necessary from the central regions.

Some of the new cities, such as Kursk and especially Voronezh, due to their favorable location, quickly acquired commercial importance, but, as a rule, during the 16th century. the new cities remained purely military settlements. This does not mean, of course, that their inhabitants were engaged only in military affairs. As you know, service people in free time were engaged in crafts, and crafts, and trade, and agriculture. The military character of the settlements was reflected mainly in the very composition of the population.

In all the new cities we meet an insignificant number of so-called "residential" people - townspeople and peasants. The bulk of the “population was made up of service (i.e. military) people. But unlike the central cities, the lowest category of servicemen prevailed here - “instrument” people: Cossacks, archers, spearmen, gunners, zatinshchiks, collars, security guards, state blacksmiths, carpenters, etc. In an insignificant number among the population of new cities there were nobles and children boyar. The predominance of service people in the composition of the population of the lowest rank should undoubtedly have been reflected in the nature of land ownership.

The supply of service people with everything necessary from the center made it extremely difficult for the treasury, which sought, wherever possible, to increase the number of "local" people who received instead of a salary land. As the advanced positions moved south, the previously built fortresses spontaneously overgrown with settlements and settlements. If the construction of the fortress itself was the work of state bodies, then the building and settlement of the settlements in the 16th century. occurred, apparently, as a result of local initiative on lands allocated by the state.

From the surviving orders to the governors-builders of the late 16th century. it can be seen that the military people went to the newly built cities only for a certain period, after which they disbanded and were replaced by new ones.

Even much later, namely in the first half * of the 17th century, the government, carried out, did not immediately decide on the forcible resettlement of military people "with wives and children and with all their bellies" to new cities "for eternal life." From this it is clear why in the cities built in the 16th century there is still no regular planning of residential areas. In almost all these cities, at least in the parts closest to the fortress, the street network developed according to the traditional radial system, showing a tendency, on the one hand, to the fortified center, and on the other hand, to the roads to the surroundings and neighboring villages. In some cases, a tendency to the formation of ring directions is noticeable.

Carefully considering the plans of new cities of the 16th century, one can still notice in many of them a calmer and more correct outline of quarters than in old cities, the desire for a uniform width of quarters and other signs of rational planning. The irregularities, kinks, and dead ends encountered here are the result of the gradual unregulated growth of the city, in many cases - adaptation to difficult topographic conditions. They have little in common with the bizarre capricious forms in the plans of the old cities - Vyazma, Rostov the Great, Nizhny Novgorod and others.

New cities of the 16th century almost did not know the remnants of the land chaos of the period of feudal fragmentation, which so hampered the rational development of old cities. It is also possible that the governors, who monitored the state of the fortified city, to a certain extent paid attention to the layout of the settlements that arose in new cities, as a rule, on lands free from development, to the observance of some order in the tracing of streets and roads that had military value. The distribution of plots near the city was undoubtedly to be regulated by the governors, because the organization of the border defense covered a significant territory on both sides of the fortified line.

The foregoing is confirmed by the plans of the cities of Volkhov, first mentioned in 1556 (Fig. 8, Appendix 1), and Alatyr, the first reliable information about which dates back to 1572 (Fig. 9, Appendix 1).

In these plans, immediately from the square adjacent to the Kremlin, a slender fan of radial streets is visible. Some breaks in them do not in the least interfere with the clarity of the overall system. In both plans, groups of quarters of uniform width are noticeable, which indicates a certain desire for standardization of estates. We see a sharp change in the size of the quarters and a violation of the overall harmony of the planning system only on the outskirts of the suburbs, where the settlements developed, apparently, independently and only later merged with the cities into a common array.

In the plans of these cities there are streets, as if revealing a desire to form quadrangular quarters. A similarity of a rectangular-rectilinear layout is more definitely expressed in the fortified settlement of the city of Tsivilsk (built in 1584), where the desire is clearly visible to divide the entire, albeit very small, territory into rectangular quarters (Fig. 10, appendix 1) p. The planning of this settlement was associated, as an exception for the 16th century, with an organized settlement of a certain group of people.

Vyacheslav Kolesnik

In the 16th and 17th centuries, between Russia and the Crimean Khanate, as well as the Caucasus, a vast, almost deserted steppe, called the Wild Field, stretched. Here, on the southern outskirts of the Muscovite state, in order to get rid of the arbitrariness of the landowners and bondage, masses of fugitive people began to rush in those days. The steppe, rich in fertile black soil, free life attracted them to these parts. They settled along the banks of rivers, in dense forests. Thus began the formation of the Cossacks. It was possible to live here freely, but at the same time it was dangerous, since numerous detachments of Tatars were constantly scouring the steppe with the aim of robbing and capturing prisoners. For a long time, the people who inhabited the territory of the modern Belgorod region were the first to take the blows of the robbers, they were the only force that stood in their way.

In those distant years, three robber roads - Tatar sakmas - ran here. These sakmas were called Izyumskaya, Kalmiusskaya and Muravskaya. The latter was also called Muravsky Way. This path was the main way for the Tatars to penetrate Russia. It ran a little to the west of modern Belgorod, in the area of ​​​​the current Tomarovsky airfield.

The cruel hordes of robbers spared no one and nothing on their way - the villages were burned to the ground, people were completely exterminated or taken away to the full. In the first half of the 17th century alone, over two hundred thousand captives were taken to Kafu (now Feodosia), to the main slave market.

And so, in order to more reliably shield its southern borders, the Moscow government decided to build here first several fortress cities, and then build a continuous fortified line - the Belgorod line. Its length was about 800 kilometers, of which 320 km fell on the territory of the modern Belgorod region. It consisted of earthen ramparts, forest notches, gouges, as well as natural barriers - deep rivers, swamps, ravines. The government determined the city of Belgorod as the military and administrative center of this barrier line, which is why the line was called Belgorodskaya. The basis of its combat power was made up of fortress cities built along the entire line.

From 1635 to 1658, 25 fortress cities were built, which formed the basis of the Belgorod defensive line. Ten of them were located on the territory of the modern Belgorod region: Yablonov (1637), Usyord (1637), Korocha (1637), Hotmyzhsk (1640), Bolkhovets (1646), Karpov (1646), Tsarev-Alekseev (1647), Verkhososensk (1647), Belgorod (1650), Nezhegolsk (1654).

Special mention should be made of Belgorod. As a southern outpost of the Moscow State the city was founded in 1593. The year 1650 is the time when the fortress was built already in the third, new place, in the system of the created defensive line.

Reconstructed typical fortress of the 17th century. The main material for the construction of such fortresses was earth and wood. A rampart surrounding the fortress was built from the earth, towers and buildings were built from wood. The height of the shaft reached 5 meters; for strength, it was covered with clay with a layer of about 70 cm, which was then fired with fire. In front of the rampart, on the outside, there was a deep ditch lined with oak. At the bottom of the moat, sharp oak stakes were strengthened.

Wooden walls with towers were built on the shaft - corner and private. In the towers and in the walls, along the entire perimeter of the fortress, there were loopholes for firing at the enemy. On the Moscow side there were the main gates. Above the gate, on the cantilever ledges, a “chapel on an overhang” with an icon was arranged, which provided patronage to the defenders of the fortress. In front of the gates there was a bridge that could be raised in case of danger. From the side of the Wild Field, from where the Tatars penetrated into Russia, a wall was built with deaf impassable towers, on the spiers of which the symbols of the Russian state - double-headed eagles - were visible from afar. This fortress wall was usually built on the steep bank of the river, which was an additional natural barrier. For a more reliable vulnerability of the enemy, logs “with a frequent oak nail” were flooded in the water.

The corner towers were about 25 meters high, which allowed guards from the observation tower to survey the vast expanses of the steppe.

The following buildings were located inside the fortress: a church, a voivodship office, a state cellar, a barn for weapons, a moving out hut under the same roof as a prison, a powder magazine, several spacious huts for service people. There were granaries and crates for supplies, as well as stables, carpenter's, shoemaker's, saddler's workshops, a shop with trading rows, and a smithy. There was a common soap and cookery. In case of a siege, several cages were provided for the service and peasant people. A message bell towered on the square - “flash”.

A prominent place was occupied by the yard of the governor. It was surrounded by a high palisade, inside the yard there were 2 huts, a stable, a cellar, a barn, a soap room, a kitchen. Nearby was the yard of the clerk, the second person after the governor. Here in some fortresses there was an "ambassadorial exchange", where the Russians redeemed their prisoners (from 15 to 100 rubles - "depending on the person"). There was a guest yard in the fortress - for messengers, sovereign ambassadors, foreigners, merchants. The Streltsy head, the Cossack ataman, the Pushkar and Dragoon heads, as well as the boyar children also lived in separate courtyards.

In an inconspicuous place was a cache - an underground passage through which it was possible to leave the fortress during the siege. A limited number of people knew about the existence of the cache.

There were about 400 people in the fortress. Most of them were archers, Cossacks, gunners, dragoons.

This military people tirelessly carried out the service of protecting the southern borders of the Moscow state, which contributed to a more active settlement and economic development of our rich region.

Sketches by V. Kolesnik: "Reconstruction of typical structures of the fortress of the notch line"

... Military architecture is to make a city such that people can sit in a small city, and so that people can harrow the city and themselves from that city from many troubles.
(N. Obruchev. Review of handwritten and printed monuments relating to the history of military art in Russia until 1725)

Defense architecture has a special place in the history of Russian architecture. Numerous fortresses and monasteries that arose in the scattered lands of Russia contributed to the protection of borders, the rise and strengthening of the spirit of the Russian people, and then the unification of these lands around Moscow and the creation of a multinational Russian state.

The fortifications of Ancient Russia not only played a huge role in the historical life of the country, but also represented magnificent works of architecture. Having no practical significance today, the monuments of defensive architecture reflect the heroic past of the Russian people, linking times and generations, and remain the most valuable cultural heritage. The further we go forward, the longer the distance between the present and the past becomes, and breaking this distance means turning the past against you, because, as the eastern wisdom says, “if you shoot at the past with a pistol, the future will shoot at you with a cannon.”

All our ideas about fortified wooden architecture have developed thanks to chronicle sources, archaeological excavations and studies of rare examples of fortified wooden structures that have survived to this day. The most famous of them - the towers of the Siberian prisons, as well as the passage tower of the Nikolo-Karelsky Monastery - date back to the second half of the 17th century. Fortresses of an earlier time are studied mainly on the basis of materials from archaeologists, ancient engravings, drawings and images on icons. The pictorial material gives, although quite visual, but still a conditional idea of ​​the nature and construction of wooden fortresses.

Ancient Russians began to build wooden fortresses a long time ago. Already in the period Kievan Rus the fortified cities on the steppe outskirts of this Slavic state were united in a defensive system, called the "Snake Walls". The art of erecting wood-and-earth fortifications of this period originates from the time of the collapse of the tribal system and the stratification of society, when, according to the apt expression of F. Engels, “war and organization for war are now becoming regular functions of people's life ... War ... becomes a constant trade. It is not for nothing that formidable walls rise around the new fortified cities: in their ditches the grave of the tribal system gapes, and their towers already reach civilization.

Evidence of this stratification of society is the surviving remains of ancient settlements in different countries. Quite primitive in their design, the first fortifications relied to a greater extent on the protective properties of the relief of the area on which they arose. The ability of Russian town-planners to choose places for their settlements was distinctive feature their creativity. These places, as a rule, were not only well protected by nature itself, but also convenient, beautiful, and strategically advantageous. Such a tradition of choosing places using the protective properties of the terrain dates back, as noted by the well-known historian of urban planning A.V. Bunin, to the ancient Greek cities, but in Russia it was not only further developed, but also interpreted.

Using the protective properties of the terrain during the construction of cities, Russian urban planners did not lose sight of its artistic merits. Relief, landscape, river or lake - all these natural ingredients not only protected the settlements, but also enhanced the expressiveness of their appearance. Even the Eastern Slavs chose hilltops, river bends, islands and other aesthetically expressive areas of the terrain for their settlements.

The construction of fortress cities accompanied the entire historical process of the formation and development of the Russian state. Conquering various tribes, the Russian princes set up fortified cities designed to collect tribute. With the advent of one city, others soon arose nearby. Already by the 13th century, many ancient Russian fortresses had reached such a level of development that they aroused the admiration of contemporaries. However, their further improvement was suspended for a long time by the avalanche of the Mongol-Tatar invasion. Like a hurricane wind, the wooden fortress cities of the Ryazan and Vladimir principalities were swept off the face of the earth in 1237, and three years later Batu, after a short rest, appeared at the walls of ancient Kyiv. And this city, despite the steadfast protection of the townspeople, was betrayed by fire and sword.

The Russian fortified cities offered strong resistance to Batu's army. Unparalleled in its kind and truly heroic was the defense of wooden Kozelsk in 1238. For seven weeks the Tatars could not take him. Enraged Batu, bursting into the fortress, ordered to destroy all life, drowning the city in blood. But the people's memory is strong. Many centuries later, already in the second half of the 18th century, when the coat of arms of the newly revived Kozelsk was approved, the long-standing feat of its heroic defenders was reflected in the coat of arms: “In the scarlet field, signifying bloodshed, there are five silver shields with black crosses, expressing the courage of their defense and the unfortunate fate » .

Unfortunately, history has not conveyed to us information about what the fortifications of Kozelsk were from the time of its legendary defense. True, a description of the wooden city made in 1678, when Kozelsk was part of the Zasechnaya line, has been preserved. By the design of its fortifications, it did not differ much from other wooden fortresses of the 17th century.

Vitality and perfection of many wooden fortresses were tested during the Mongol-Tatar invasion. Russia was enslaved, but not broken, not overthrown. Like a phoenix, wooden cities were reborn from the ashes. In the Pskov and Novgorod lands, where the hordes of Genghis Khan and Batu did not reach, they forged swords and gathered squads, Russian people flocked here from the occupied lands. New fortresses were built, the will was tempered, and the spirit of the Russian people rose, and no avalanche of invasion could break this upsurge.

The centuries-old experience of building fortresses was passed down from generation to generation - from grandfather to grandson, from father to son. All the best accumulated over the centuries was embodied in Russian cities. This experience was once summarized in a handwritten book compiled by Onisim Mikhailov at the beginning of the 17th century and called "The Charter of military, cannon and other matters related to military science." The "Charter" consists of six hundred and sixty-three articles and is a kind of set of rules on the construction and equipping of fortresses, on the organization and provision of engineer troops. All previous multifaceted experience in the development of Russian military-technical thought was reflected in this unique document. The regulation of the requirements set forth in the "Charter" concerned literally all aspects of military engineering. An amazing, absolutely amazing document in terms of its impact! The clarity and clarity of the requirements, the unambiguity and persuasiveness of its provisions - these are the qualities that have made the "Charter" vital for almost two centuries.

In the complex and diverse chain of cultural heritage, architecture occupies perhaps the most leading place, but some of its sections, including fortified wooden architecture, still remain poorly understood. Time has mercilessly wiped off the face of the earth the works of Russian town-planners, ordinary peasants who equally skillfully wielded a carpenter's ax, a warrior's weapon, and a peasant plow. The lack of study of this problem is largely due to the lack of material remains of wooden fortresses. So, until recently, no more than a dozen fortress towers, remnants of defensive architecture, were known to a wide range of researchers. Most of them are in Siberia. Currently, there are five surviving towers: two Bratsk and one each - Ilim, Belsky and Yakutsk prisons. However, even at the beginning of our century, five towers and two strands of a wooden wall, chopped with taras, were preserved from the sixteen-tower Yakut fortress. In 1924, the only tower of the Lyapinsky prison in the north of the Tyumen region burned down, perhaps the earliest of all the remaining ones - it lasted more than three hundred years. Somewhat earlier, in 1899, also from a fire, a watchtower in the village of Torgovishche in the Perm region, which stood for more than two centuries, died. True, at the beginning of the 20th century it was cut down again and at present it is nothing more than a life-size model, so its historical value and significance are greatly reduced. In 1914, the Omsk ethnographer I. N. Shukhov saw among the ruins of the ancient Mangazeya, located beyond the Arctic Circle, one dilapidated tower with loopholes.

Information about these remains of wooden fortresses is recorded in the literature and complements our understanding of the external appearance and design features of defensive architecture. These ideas can be expanded by studying not only the surviving remains of fortresses, but also searching for new, unknown archival sources, as well as archaeological excavations at the sites of former fortresses. How effective such studies and searches are is evidenced by the excavations carried out at the site of Mangazeya in 1968-1973, where almost the entire planning structure of the city, which has been preserved since its abandonment in 1672, was studied in the most detailed way.

In 1969, on the Kazym River (Berezovsky district of the Tyumen region) in the remote taiga, the ruins of the Yuilsky prison were discovered and examined in detail for the first time, from which the log cabins of two fortress towers, a dilapidated barracks hut, several barns and traces of more than a hundred other residential buildings, were quite well preserved, economic and religious purposes.

The survey and excavations carried out in the same 1969 on the site of the Zashiversky prison in the north of Yakutia also revealed the planning structure of the wooden fortress of the 17th century, from which the magnificent architecture of the Savior-Zashiverskaya hipped church has been fairly well preserved.

All these finds and studies help to complete the bright page of Russian fortress architecture and make a tangible contribution to the treasury of ancient Russian culture. Besides. they make it possible to visualize the appearance of the fortresses and cities, about which archival sources provide the least information. They also make it possible to clarify their design, reveal features and trace common features that are characteristic not only for the serfs, but also for the entire wooden architecture of Ancient Russia. And, finally, and most importantly, on the basis of archival and archaeological research and analysis of the surviving remains of the fortresses, perform a graphic reconstruction as separate elements of the fortresses (towers, walls). and their appearance in general.

The question of what ancient Russian cities looked like is not an idle one. He occupied the minds of many enlightened people. Suffice it to recall at least the artists, the most famous among whom was A.M. Vasnetsov, who dedicated more than a hundred paintings and drawings to Moscow alone in the 12th-17th centuries. Everything that this master has done is based on his deep knowledge of historical documents. It is also known that he repeatedly took part in archaeological excavations. The veracity of A. M. Vasnetsov’s paintings is such that it allows them to be used as graphic analogues in the reconstruction of the architectural appearance of other ancient Russian wooden fortresses.

The study of defensive architecture is very important for historical and architectural science. As I. E. Zabelin, a prominent connoisseur and brilliant researcher of Russian history, culture and life, noted at the end of the last century, “we have the right to start the history of our architecture” from wooden fortresses. Indeed, all the first ancient Russian cities were entirely wooden, and the level of development of military art and technology in X-XIII centuries was such that in the absence of firearms, wooden fortress walls, together with earthen ramparts and ditches filled with water, served as reliable protection for city residents.

Further development military equipment and the appearance of firearms led to the need to improve the fortifications. If initially the settlements were only protected from attacks by a wooden wall or just a rampart, then from the middle of the 13th century, combat towers were included in the fence system, located in the most vulnerable places of the fortress, and later - along its entire perimeter.

Thus, we can say that the chronology and main stages in the development of ancient Russian fortresses were most closely connected with the stages in the development of military equipment and methods of warfare. The thunder of the first cannons became a signal to replace the log walls with more perfect and powerful ones - wood-earth and stone. But for a long time, until the beginning of the 18th century, when firearms were used everywhere, wooden fortifications continued to be built, especially on the northern borders of the state and in Siberia.

The history of wooden Russian fortresses is not only the history of the development of military art and technology, it is the history of the centuries-old struggle of the Russian people with numerous enemies who tried to enslave Russia. And although today there are no witnesses of this struggle - wooden fortresses, but the tenacious folk memory has forever preserved their majestic image in legends and epics.

The book offered to the reader does not claim to complete the disclosure of the history of the development of wooden fortress architecture. To do this today in the required completeness, perhaps, is no longer possible. The author made an attempt to show only separate fragments of the centuries-old history of defense architecture. For obvious reasons, most of the materials refer to the fortresses of the XVI-XVII centuries. But precisely because the methods and traditions of construction in Russian wooden architecture have been stable and often unchanged for hundreds of years, the remains of fortresses of the 17th century make it possible to judge the architectural appearance of fortresses of an earlier time.

defensive walls

The walls not only performed protective functions, they also determined the parameters of the city, served as a kind of backdrop for civil and religious buildings. Deprived of decorative elements, the fortress walls, thanks to a clear and strict rhythm of divisions (tyn, gorodni and taras) * achieved great architectural and artistic expressiveness. The emotional sound of the whole composition was enhanced by the towers. They further emphasized the rhythmic structure of the long wooden wall.

Until the 13th century, in chronicle sources, any construction of the fence had the same name - the city. This characteristic feature was noticed by Sigismund Herberstein: "... for everything that is surrounded by a wall, fortified by a fence or fenced in another way, they call a city." In the same sense, this term was used throughout the subsequent time, almost until the beginning of the 18th century. At the same time, other terms are common in the written sources of the 17th century: “tyn”, “gorodny”, “tarasy”, “fort”, meaning a specific and specific type of wall construction. The term "city" in the sense of a fortress wall is used as a generalized concept, it means both a zaplot (lying city) and a tynovaya wall (standing city), and not just a log structure.

Tyn is the simplest type of wooden fortress wall and, perhaps, the most ancient (ill. 2, 3). Tyn walls surrounded the city, tyn was arranged in a moat and on ramparts. Depending on the setting of the tyna, its height also changed. Naturally, the highest wall was in the event that it was placed on a flat area, and the smallest height was a tyn, set on a high, steeply sloping earthen rampart. Here he rather played the role of a parapet, rather than a wall in the sense of a fortress fence. Shooting with such a device of the wall was carried out over the tyna.

2. Tynovaya wall of the fortress in Svisloch. 17th century Reconstruction by S. A. Sergachev

The high tyn required additional fastenings, since the lower part of the logs, which was in the ground, quickly rotted and the wall collapsed. So, the Verkhoturye governor in 1641 reported that the prison in Verkhoturye was “set up by a tyn, but Tarasov and oblams and no fortresses, and that prison was completely rotten and fell down in many places, and those who were spinning and standing, and those on both sides on supports". It must be assumed that supports in the form of inclined logs were placed immediately when the walls were erected. Often they protruded outward with a sharp end and were called "needles". This was done in order to prevent the enemy from overcoming the fortress wall. Apparently, just such a wall was made in 1684 in Tyumen. Here, instead of a chopped one, they put up a wall of a different design - "on beam needles from a leg and outlets." Something similar can be seen on the plan of Tobolsk at the end of the 17th century (ill. 1). The existence of special props is also evidenced by the description of the Ilim prison in 1703, the walls of which were 333 sazhens long, and around the entire prison there were 2961 tynins “with pillars and crossbars”.

3. Fragment of the tynovy wall of the Bratsk prison. 17th century

the functions of props were also performed by "flooring", arranged along the walls inside the fortress. At the same time, they were used to organize defense from the "upper battle". Such beds were simple in design, comfortable and therefore quite common. Mentions of them are found in the painted lists of cities on the northern, southern borders and in Siberia. The wall was much more durable, in which the tyn was combined with elements of the log structure in different variations: the tyn and transverse chopped walls, on top of which the flooring was arranged; a log solid wall of small height, covered with earth and stones, and on top of it - a tyn of small height; a log wall of small height and close to it - a tyn of ordinary height; log cells, covered with earth with stones and placed close to the wall, and on top of the cells - flooring.

A wide variety of combinations of tyn and log elements emphasizes the wide distribution of tyn walls in Russian fortresses, which was also facilitated by the speed and simplicity of arranging the tyn. Among the varieties of stave walls, the “oblique prison” is of interest, in which the logs pointed at the top had an inclined position. Such a wall was supported by a small embankment from inside the fortress, special "goats" or a platform attached to the wall. It is known that the Okhotsk Ostrog, which was originally called the Oblique Ostrog, was surrounded by walls of this design.

Along with the tyn, the log construction of the wall, known under the names "city", "gorodny" or "tarasy" (Fig. 4), became widespread in wooden fortress architecture. It was a much more perfect structure both in terms of strength and architecture, originating from the log house - the foundation of the foundations and the constructive and architectural and artistic expressiveness of wooden architecture. The appearance of gorodnyas and taras in Russian fortresses instead of single-row tynovy walls was a logical response to the appearance of firearms, and in particular artillery. The cells of the log walls, as a rule, were filled with earth and stones. Such walls continued to be used until the end of the 17th century.

6. Fragment of the log wall of the Nikolo-Karelsky Monastery. 17th century

Here is how the chronicler describes the walls of one of the fortresses of the Kozelsko-Stolpitskaya notch in 1635: doors cut through in the cells, walk around the city. Here, log cabins filled with earth and stones are called “bulls”. The bulls are connected by a single-row chopped wall, and on top of the bulls a flooring is arranged, on which the wall is already chopped in two rows with transverse cuts. Moreover, there is no gallery on the wall, and all the cells have a communication between themselves through the doors.

In the 15th century, a two-row log wall became widespread. It becomes the main type of construction of the fortress wall. In written sources, such a design is called "taras". In it, not all cells were filled with earth and stones. Usually the fence consisted of two parallel walls, one and a half to two fathoms apart from each other and interconnected by cuts at intervals of one or two fathoms. The narrow cells were filled with "cartilage", while the wide ones remained hollow. They were intended for the defenders of the fortress. Each of them usually had two loopholes and a door.

The definition of taras and gorodnyas was first classified by F. Laskovsky and then accepted by all researchers. Gorodny, according to Laskovsky's terminology, are separate log cabins placed close to each other. Such a construction of the wall, as the researcher noted, had a significant drawback - the junctions of the log cabins were more exposed to atmospheric precipitation and decayed faster. In addition, the wall received an uneven draft of log cabins, as a result of which it was bent and drops appeared in the flooring and roofs. In other words, the construction in the form of a gorodni harmed the strength of the wall.

In the wall, chopped with taras, this design flaw was absent. Actually taras, according to Laskovsky, was a section of the wall (cell) between two walls (cuts).

The construction of log walls took much longer and required a significant amount of building material. Often, therefore, when choosing a place for a future fortress, its founders took into account the protective properties of the area as much as possible and did not put walls on the most protected sides. So, in 1598, the builders of the city on the Tura River reported to the tsar that “from the river from the Tura along the bank of the steep stone of the mountain from the water upwards with a height of 12 and more, and not measured by sazhens, and that mountain is steep, a cliff, and there are places along The tour along the river along the very bank is 60 sazhens large, and according to the estimate, there is no need for a city wall in that place, because that place is good strong, no deeds can climb ... that place is stronger without the city walls of any city, except for that order the place to put the mansions in a row, what is the city, but to do the huts, and put the yards to the walls.

The surviving written documents give some idea of ​​the size of the fortress walls. Comparison of the inventories shows that the height of the walls in most of the logged cities was two and a half - three fathoms with minor deviations in one direction or another. The width of the walls, as a rule, was not less than one and a half fathoms, but usually did not exceed two fathoms. Comparison of descriptions of fortresses in the Russian North (for example, Olonets, Opochka) and southern and Siberian fortresses shows the identity of their main dimensions. The height of the tynovy walls usually ranged from one and a half to two fathoms, and only in rare cases did it reach three or more fathoms.

Wooden chopped walls had a gable roof, the truss structure of which was supported on the outer wall and on pillars from the inner side of the city. The pillars rested on the releases of the upper logs of the transverse walls-cuts. An illustrative example of such a covering is the surviving part of the wall with the passage tower of the Nikolo-Karelsky Monastery (ill. 6). Wings are usually “two tesa”, less often - “one tesa”, but in the latter case, shreds were placed under the tesa or flashings were nailed on top. In 1684, voivode Matvey Kravkov, taking Yakutsk from his predecessor, noted in his unsubscribe that "the walls near the city and the tower are covered in one block, without flashings."

A characteristic feature of the fortress chopped walls was the arrangement of upper, middle and lower battlements in them. For this purpose, loopholes for shooting were cut through in each cell of the lower wall and the upper tier. The same loopholes were “cut through” in the fortified walls, but there they were located not along the entire wall, but in special “outcomes”. The shooting of the upper battle was carried out, as already noted, on top of the tyna.

The defensive walls of Russian fortresses, performing their main functions, served as a reliable cover for the defenders. The architecture of the fortress walls embodied the advanced achievements of Russian building art; in the conditions of a long struggle, various combinations of structural elements were developed, but the best achievement of the architecture of the defensive walls, no doubt, remains a powerful chopped fence structure, a vivid example of which can be the remains of the Yakut prison (Fig. 5).

*For explanations of these and other terms, see the glossary.

fortress towers

The defensive architecture of Ancient Russia up to the 13th century was characterized by the absence of towers in the fortresses. Sometimes single towers stood inside the fortifications, acting as watchtowers and watchtowers, and, as a rule, did not take an active part in the defense. Directly in the fortress walls, the towers began to be arranged with the advent of artillery. The most common terms that meant a tower were "vezha", "strelnitsa", "bonfire", "pillar". Moreover, these terms were not equally common throughout Russia. So, in the Pskov and Novgorod lands, the tower was called the word "fire", and in Moscow - "strelnitsa". All of them served as observation posts. Passage towers were more common, but they were almost always called "gate towers". They can be seen on the drawings attached here (Fig. 9).

The term "tower" appeared later, only in the 16th century, and since that time it has been found everywhere. Since the end of the 16th century, chronicle sources not only record the term itself, but also give a description of the structural arrangement of towers of various types, their size and number in the system of defensive structures of the fortress. Material remnants have come down to us from the 17th century - the fortress towers of some prisons. For the most part, they have undergone some changes over such a long existence, affecting mainly such elements as the roof, interfloor ceilings, stairs and gates. At the same time, numerous descriptions preserved in the painted lists make it possible to trace the nature of the constructive structure of the towers, as well as their individual elements and forms.

In the 17th century, the term "tower" became so common that it no longer covered the whole variety of these structures, which differed from each other in their constructive structure, functional purpose and location in the system of defensive fortifications. It was on these grounds that the towers in the painted lists began to be called: passing, gate, corner, deaf, round, quadrangular, two-tier, guard, beam, and so on (ill. 7-10). Among the various names, separate groups are clearly traced, from which types of towers emerge, differing from each other in the main features: the shape of the plan, the purpose, the method of felling, the number of tiers.

Most of the towers of wooden fortresses were quadrangular in plan, or, as they wrote in the annals, "chopped into four walls." Round, or polygonal, towers, although they were less common, they almost always played the role of the main travel towers. These towers not only differed in the shape of the plan, but were also larger. So, for example, at the end of the 17th century, the passage tower of Novaya Mangazeya rose to a height of 24.9 m, and the octahedral tower of the Tobolsk Kremlin in 1678 rose from the ground to completion by almost 50 m.

Depending on the size and significance of the fortress, the number of towers and their sizes varied. When and what types of towers were taken as a basis - it is difficult to identify, and sometimes impossible. For example, all sixteen towers of Yakutsk were quadrangular, and in Tobolsk, out of nine towers, four were quadrangular, four corner towers were hexagonal, and one was octagonal. In Novaya Mangazeya, only one passage tower stood out, and four corner towers had a square base in plan. Round towers were more common in the Russian North. So, in Olonets, according to the inventory of 1699, there were ten hexagonal and only three quadrangular towers. In Kholmogory in 1623, out of eleven towers, there were seven hexagonal ones, and in the Kola Fortress, all five towers had the same form of plan.

An important advantage of polygonal towers was that they protruded beyond the line of the city wall with three, four or five walls, which significantly increased the field of view (fire). It can be assumed that round towers were more often used in complex configurations of fortress plans. Towers with six and eight walls, in contrast to the quadrangular ones, made it possible to connect the walls of the city not only at right angles. Where fortresses had a plan shape that followed the contours of the terrain, there were more round towers, and, conversely, in fortresses with a geometrically correct plan configuration, quadrangular towers were more common. Round towers have not been preserved, although their images are found on some drawings. According to the type of round towers in cult architecture, free-standing bell towers were built. It is the bell towers, having taken the form of towers, that today can give us an idea of ​​them (ill. 11). Most often round towers were ten hexagonal and only three quadrangular towers. In Kholmogory in 1623, out of eleven towers, there were seven hexagonal ones, and in the Kola Fortress, all five towers had the same form of plan.

An important advantage of polygonal towers was that they protruded beyond the line of the city wall with three, four or five walls, which significantly increased the field of view (fire). It can be assumed that round towers were more often used in complex configurations of fortress plans. Towers with six and eight walls, in contrast to the quadrangular ones, made it possible to connect the walls of the city not only at right angles. Where fortresses had a plan shape that followed the contours of the terrain, there were more round towers, and, conversely, in fortresses with a geometrically correct plan configuration, quadrangular towers were more common. Round towers have not been preserved, although their images are found on some drawings. According to the type of round towers in cult architecture, free-standing bell towers were built. It is the bell towers, having taken the form of towers, that today can give us an idea of ​​them (ill. 11). Most often, round towers were multi-tiered. In the uppermost tier there was an attic - a cage, or guardhouse. The tents of the towers and watchtowers were covered with boards. The ends of the tesin were sometimes decoratively processed in the form of teeth or feathers (spears). Both quadrangular and round towers had different ways of cutting corners - both “in the paw” and “in the oblo” (“with the remainder”).

The towers, in addition to their main ones, also performed other functions. They were used as barns, housing, bell towers or chapels were arranged on them. For example, on the Spasskaya tower of the city of Krasnoyarsk there was a chapel in the name of the Savior and a bell tower on which a bell hung. At the very top there was a guardhouse with a bypass gallery, fenced with railings. At the request of the service people, a clock was arranged on the bell tower, because "it is impossible to be without a clock, Krasnoyarsk is a fortified city, we stand on the wall guard incessantly, day and night." Towers were used even more effectively in fortresses in territories where military clashes took place. So, in Albazin, under the main travel tower there were gates, in the tower itself there was a command hut, and at the top - a guardhouse. The other two towers served as housing for the Cossacks.

In the residential towers, the entrance to the upper tier was carried out by external stairs (with the back walls of the fence) or through the entrances from the level of the breaks of the fortress walls at their junction with the tower (with the log walls). The insulation of the lower and upper tiers was done in order to keep the heat in the residential part. The interfloor ceiling was made of solid flooring, insulated with a layer of clay and earth. In addition, a layer of moss was laid between the crowns of the residential part of the log house of the tower. It is this feature that both surviving towers of the Bratsk prison have.

11. Bell tower from the village of Kuliga Drakovanov. XVI(?)-XVII centuries.

A characteristic feature of the towers of some fortresses was the presence of hanging balconies-chapels above the entrance gates. Such are the surviving towers of the Ilim and Yakut prisons (ill. 12).

12. "Chapel on the overhang" of the travel tower of the Yakut prison. 17th century

The clarity and severity of forms, the unity of the constructive system, the combination of the monumentality of the volume of the watchtower itself and the romanticism in the lighter and more elegant chapels - all this makes it possible to attribute these monuments to the most valuable examples of Russian fortified wooden architecture.

Some researchers ruled out the cult purpose of hinged balconies and entirely attributed their appearance to the task of strengthening the defense of the entrance gate of the fortress. This assumption, however, is not supported either by archival sources or by specific surviving monuments. From the very beginning, overhanging balconies were arranged as chapels, which can be confirmed in archival historical documents. The description of the Ilimsk prison by the governor Kachanov in 1703 shows that the fortress had three towers with "chapels on the overhang". At the Spasskaya Tower, one chapel was "outside the prison, and the other in the prison." The Epiphany tower opposite the Spasskaya had one chapel - "behind the guarded wall". The cult purpose of the chapels is indicated not only by their name, but also by the description of the design and individual forms (“it is made with a barrel, and on top of the barrel is a poppy with a cross, soldered with white iron, and the barrel and poppy are upholstered with a plowshare”), as well as a list of the main icons with a description their content. With a "chapel on the overhang" facing outside the prison, there was the third travel tower of the Ilimsk prison - Vvedenskaya.

The arrangement of chapels above the travel towers was not accidental. as the most weakness in the system of defensive structures, the gate towers received the "patronage" of the saints. Mounted chapels were arranged to accommodate icons. It can also be noted that icons were often placed directly above the gates. In addition to religious chapels, they also had aesthetic functions, introducing picturesqueness into the strict architecture of the towers, complementing the silhouette of the fortress, discharging the monotony of the extended walls and reducing some of the monotony of the silhouette of the towers. The constructive device of such chapels was quite simple and at the same time durable. On the surviving tower from Yakutsk, one can see quite clearly the entire structure of the connection between the tower frame and the cantilever outlets above the gate for the construction of chapels on them. For this purpose, the longest and most durable logs were used, passed through two opposite walls of the log house. Console issues consisted of three rows of logs, reinforced at the ends with a horizontal strapping. Racks at the ends of the outlets and at the walls (on the outer sides) of the tower formed the frame of the chapels. From above, the frame also had a strapping and a “two-slope” truss structure. The fencing of the chapels was taken "in the Christmas tree", and the entrances to them were carried out directly from the towers, from the second tier (bridge).

13-16 Watchtower types

Watchtowers were a functionally necessary element of most of the largest towers of wooden fortresses. They sat on the tents of the towers and in turn were also covered with small tents. The towers were, as a rule, cut from timber or represented a frame structure, fenced on all sides with railings. Deaf (without doors) booths had windows facing in all directions, and bypass galleries with railings (ill. 13-16). The structural arrangement of such observation towers can be seen on the preserved towers of Belsky, Bratsky. Yakut prison and on the travel tower of the Nikolo-Karelsky monastery.

It is impossible not to say about the importance of the towers in the overall composition of the fortress. The towers not only enriched the silhouette of the wooden Kremlin and served as dominants, but also revealed planning features, actively contributing to the appearance of the fortress city. The combination of defensive, economic, cult and emotional-artistic functions in the towers made them universal structures, occupying the main position in the compositional structure of the fortified wooden city.

17. Gates of ancient Minsk. Reconstruction by E. M. Zagorulsky.

Oblams, loopholes and other elements of fortresses

Even in ancient times, using the protective properties of the terrain, the builders of settlements thought about their additional protection. The most common during the 8th-10th centuries were deep, with steep slopes, ditches, and from the 10th century, along with them great importance buy shafts. Their height reached ten meters, as, for example, in Old Ryazan, and in Kyiv of the time of Yaroslav the Wise and even more - sixteen meters. Further development and improvement of this defensive system led to the appearance inside the shaft of a log frame structure in various variations. Thus, the huge ramparts of Kyiv, built in the 11th century, had wooden log cabins filled with earth inside. The same constructive system of fortress walls was in ancient Belgorod (ill. 19).

18. Type of oblam

The effectiveness of ditches and ramparts in the defense system of fortresses is evidenced by the fact that they were widespread until the 18th century. But in Siberia, due to the freezing of the soil in most of its territory, ditches and ramparts were rarely built, with the exception of fortresses located in more climatically favorable regions, especially along the southern borders and in the east.

19. Srubnaya wall in the system of earthen ramparts of ancient Belgorod. Reconstruction by M. V. Gorodtsov and B. A. Rybakov

Among the wide variety of elements of fortresses, two groups can be distinguished: the first includes protective devices directly on defensive structures (oblams, loopholes, fences), the second is additional "all sorts of fortresses" arranged around fortresses and cities. This includes earthen ramparts, ditches, “garlic”, gouges, fliers, particles and other devices.

The most common protective device in wooden fortification architecture was oblam. It is, as it were, a second, low-rise, frame, supported by cantilever outlets of the last crowns of the main frame of the tower. Annalistic sources also call the upper part of the log wall a bummer. AT this case this is just one outer wall with cuts - a kind of buttresses. Thus, the oblam of the tower and the oblam of the log wall differ from each other. In the tower, it is arranged, as a rule, around the entire perimeter, and on the wall - only on one side. In the first case, it is called a circular bummer and applies only to towers.

Some sources of the 17th century do not call the entire upper frame as a bummer, but only one of its walls. Moreover, it could not necessarily be a log structure. Fences in the form of walls made of tesa were widespread on the towers, which were arranged only on three sides of the tower (on the outside and on the two sides). The fourth side, facing the inside of the fortress, could be completely open or had a parapet. Such an oblam looked more like a parapet or fence. Its height usually did not exceed two meters, and it was either a low parapet, up to the chest of a person, or a wall up to the very roof, for the entire height of human growth.

20-23. Types of crashes

The broken part of the towers and log walls was separated from the walls of the lower log house by 15-25 cm, forming a gap along the entire perimeter of the towers or along the wall strands. Through these cracks they hit the enemy, who came close to the wall. Circular obmas became more widespread in wooden fortresses from the middle of the 17th century. The height of such an oblama most often did not exceed one sazhen, and the frame usually consisted of five to eight crowns of logs. In all the surviving towers, the structural arrangement of the log buildings is of the same type (ill. 18, 20-23). This is also confirmed by the painted lists of Mangazeya, Yeniseisk, Krasnoyarsk, Olonets, Opochka and other fortresses. In some archival sources instead of oblams, another term is used - “rozvals”. For example, in Selenginsk in 1665 a prison was built, and in the corners - "four towers from the roof and from the tower are covered." However, there was no fundamental difference between them.

24-27. Loopholes of squeaky battle

Small holes-loopholes for shooting at the enemy were “cut through” in the walls of the bummers. On all the surviving towers, the loopholes are the same not only in design, but also close in size. As a rule, they corresponded to the weapons used by the defenders. The dimensions of the holes (almost square in shape) were in the range of eight to ten centimeters. Outside, the lower and side planes of the loopholes were beveled for ease of shooting and increasing the front of view and shelling (ill. 24-27). For cannon fire, larger loopholes were cut through, and their dimensions were usually 30x40 cm. The loopholes must necessarily correspond to the “outfit” (ill. 28, 29). There is a known case when the governors, having arrived at the service in 1599 in Berezov, noted that, among other things, "the windows on the towers were cut out of order." They immediately ordered “to cut through the windows at the towers as much as possible” and made new machine tools for the cannons, for which they subsequently received royal gratitude.

The location of the loopholes in the towers and walls was uniform. The upper, middle and lower battles corresponded to the tiers of the towers. Access to them was carried out by stairs arranged inside the towers. The design of such stairs has been preserved in some towers. The staircase consisted of two chopping blocks (strings) with steps cut into them.

A significant addition to the fortifications were all kinds of locking devices. During the construction of fortresses, they counted not only the number of logs, planks and draperies needed for towers and walls, but also how much "what kind of iron fortresses would be needed in the passing towers to the gates and in the small gates of locks and bolts and hooks and breakdowns" .

28, 29 Cannon battle loopholes

Wooden fortresses themselves were powerful defensive structures. But along with them, according to royal orders and letters, "all sorts of fortress fortresses" were also set up. As a rule, the city planners were charged with the duty not only to set up a prison, but also "to dig ditches, and make gouges and strengthen all sorts of fortresses." During the transfer of the city during the shift of the governor, not only the walls, towers and outfit in them were necessarily inspected, but it was also noted how many “ditches and other great fortresses are near the prison”. So, when inspecting Tyumen in 1659 by governor Andrei Kaftyrev, it was found that “the ditch from the city crumbled, and others were clogged, and the sharpened der from the steppe was covered with manure in places, and there were no fortresses” . In response to the voivodship's reply, a royal decree followed, which ordered "to clean out the ditch behind the prison and make fortresses." Moreover, it was recommended to do all this in the summer, “not at a business time, so that the plowed peasant alone would not have to face great hardships and taxes.”

Apparently, such work was a burden for the inhabitants of the cities, since the ditches often slipped and clogged, and the wooden gouges rotted. In the same Tyumen, another voivode, Mikhailo Kvashnin, inspecting the fortifications of the city in 1679, found that the prison had rotted in many places, “there are no gouges, and the ditch is not dug.” And so it was in many Russian cities.

The term "all sorts of fortresses" meant artificial protective devices in the form of ditches, earthen ramparts, gouges, "garlic" (ill. 30, 31). In combination with each other, they all represented quite significant and often impregnable artificial obstacles. Such a system of additional devices is shown in great detail in Onufry Stepanov’s reply about the attack of the Bogdoy troops in 1655 on the Komarsky prison, around which a ditch was dug, “and the circle of that ditch is beaten with wooden garlic, and the circle of that wooden garlic is beaten with an iron arrow hidden ... and in the prison there were underwear and upper battles, and inside the prison wall they were covered with cartilage from the lower battle to the top from the cannon battle. In the event of a “bulk attack”, a “high ship plank tree” was attached to the prison, for the construction of stairs, and rollers were “laid” on the prison. The Bogdoys, proceeding to the attack, “they put shields at that wooden garlic, and on that iron garlic, many Bogdoy people injected and could not go to the prison from that iron garlic to the wall.”

Artificial obstacles were erected not only around the fortress walls. In Russian fortified wooden architecture of the 16th-17th centuries, they were widely used in the system of notches that connected separate fortifications, guard posts and redoubts. The size and scale of artificial obstacles testify to their importance in the overall system of defensive structures. They were fortified lines on the approaches to the borders of cities and the Russian state as a whole. The art of their arrangement was as high as the construction of the fortresses themselves.

In Russia, the word "city" called any fortified place surrounded by a fortress wall. The construction of defensive structures was vital, as it guaranteed protection from numerous external enemies.

Moscow Kremlin

The history of the Moscow Kremlin can be conditionally divided into two stages: wooden and stone. The very word "Kremlin" in translation from Old Russian means a fortress located inside the city itself, the so-called citadel. The first wooden Kremlin was built during the reign of Ivan Kalita (1328-1341). This is not surprising, since only the rich and strong prince had the money to build temples and fortifications, and it was Ivan Kalita who found them, because he was the first ruler-entrepreneur.

In 1366-1367. during the reign of Dmitry Donskoy, the construction of a new Moscow Kremlin began - a stone one. Instead of wooden fortifications, a “city of stones” arose, which was expanded almost to the limits of the present. Surrounded the Moscow Kremlin, the first Northeast Russia impregnable white stone fortress. The fortifications were lower than modern ones, but it was they who did not allow the Lithuanian prince Olgerd to seize Moscow in 1368, 1370 and 1372, when he made his campaigns. Under Ivan III (1462-1505), the reconstruction of the Moscow Kremlin began; the fortifications of Dmitry Donskoy dilapidated and were no longer a reliable defense against the enemy. The character of the Grand Duke affected the construction: the fortifications were built slowly and thoroughly - for centuries to come. For this work, not only Russian, but also Italian architects were invited. Probably, Ivan III did this on the advice of his second wife Sophia Paleolog, who was brought up in Italy.
The construction of Moscow fortifications was completed only in 1516, already during the reign of Basil III, son of Ivan III and Sophia Paleolog.

Pskov Kremlin

The Kremlin or Krom, as Pskovians call it, is located on a rocky cape at the confluence of two rivers - the Great and the Pskov. The wooden walls of the Kremlin were erected in the VIII - X centuries, in the X - XIII centuries. the first stone fortifications appeared, after which the construction of new Kremlin towers began, the strengthening of the fortress walls and their growth in height. Two southern passage gates led to the Kremlin, of which only the Great (Trinity) gates have been preserved, reliably protected by the Trinity Tower and zahab. Initially, the Great Gate was 5 - 6 m below today's level. From which we can conclude about the power of Perseus (the first stone wall of the Kremlin on the south side), the height of the walls of which exceeded 20 m. Nobody lived in the Kremlin. A people's council gathered here, food supplies were stored, there were cages guarded by guard dogs - "Kromsky dogs". Theft from the Kremlin was considered a serious state crime and was punishable by death. On the territory of the Kremlin is the Trinity Cathedral - the main temple of Pskov and the Pskov land.

Dovmontov city is the second belt of defensive fortifications of Krom. The territory fortified with stone walls and towers adjoins the Pskov Kremlin from the south. It was named after Prince Dovmont (in the baptism of Timothy), who reigned in Pskov from 1266 to 1299. honor was placed a stone church in the southern part of the Kremlin. Despite the small territory - about one and a half hectares - in the XII-XVI centuries. Pskovians are erecting more than 20 church and civil buildings made of stone in the Dovmontov city. At the time of the veche republic (until 1510), Dovmontov was considered the center of the church and administrative administration of Pskov and the Pskov land. Unfortunately, the temples and administrative buildings of the Dovmont city have not survived to this day. One can judge about the ancient buildings only from the foundations of some medieval churches raised above the ground, the number of which, as they assume, corresponded to the number of Pskov suburbs.

Kremlin of Novgorod the Great

The Novgorod Kremlin is one of the oldest monuments of Russian military defense architecture of the 15th-17th centuries. The total area of ​​the fortress inside the walls is 12.1 ha. A deep moat surrounds it from the north, west and south. The fortress walls, standing on the shaft, have a length of 1487 m, a height of 8 to 15 m, a thickness of 3.6 to 6.5 m. , Kokuy, Intercession, Zlatoust, Metropolitan, Fedorov and Vladimir.
The original Detinets was made of wood, but over the years it was rebuilt many times, and finally, after the annexation of Novgorod to the Moscow State in the 15th century, it became stone. By the way, the Moscow Kremlin was also rebuilt around the same period. This is probably why the walls of the Moscow and Novgorod Kremlins are similar.
Until the 18th century, the Novgorod Kremlin performed purely defensive functions in the north-west of Russia. And after the annexation of the Baltic states to Russia, it lost its defensive purpose, however, like many other fortresses of Russia.
In the Kremlin there are: the most ancient temple in Russia, St. Sophia Cathedral (1045-1050), the oldest civil building - the Vladychnaya (Faceted) Chamber (1433) and other monuments of the XV-XIX centuries.
In the center of the Kremlin there is a monument to the Millennium of Russia (1862).

Kazan fortress

No historian will name the exact date of the construction of the Kazan Kremlin. Researchers believe that the complex appeared between the 10th and 12th centuries. At first, all buildings were built of wood, and the Kremlin itself consisted of fortress walls. But every year more and more buildings appeared, and then the complex turned into a real city - this is how Kazan was born. First, the fortress was an outpost for the Bulgar princes, then for the khans of the Golden Horde. From the 16th century, it came under the control of the Russian state - it was captured by Ivan the Terrible.

At first, the troops turned the Kremlin fortifications into ruins, but it is from this moment that a new page in the history of the complex begins. Ivan the Terrible started a grand reconstruction of the Kremlin: architects and masons arrived from Pskov. For six years, the masters have changed the appearance of the building beyond recognition. Orthodox churches, bell towers and towers appeared on the territory. Instead of wooden fortifications, stone ones were erected. This citadel was famous for a long time as the most impregnable fortress of medieval Russia.

But in the 18th century, this function became unimportant - the state expanded its borders. Only during the uprising of Yemelyan Pugachev, the Kremlin was used as a fortification during the siege of Kazan. After that, the complex lost its military purpose completely. FROM late XIX century, the fortress began to take on a modern architectural image, and today it is a symbol of reconciliation between Orthodoxy and Islam.

The main entrance to the Kremlin lies through the Spasskaya Tower - on May Day Square. Pay attention to the statue of the Dragon Zilant. This creature is considered a symbol of Kazan and the protector of the city. There are many legends about the Kazan basilisk - it is believed that the monster lives at the bottom of the lake and the hills at the mouth of the river, it happens in the surrounding forests.

Particularly stands out Spasskaya Tower - the main part of the complex. Sheinkman Street stretches from it - the former Bolshaya, which was the most basic in the Kremlin. This tower was built later than the others - in the 17th century as a symbol of the greatness of Russia. Pskov craftsmen have worked hard to create a traditional Russian bell tower with a majestic eagle on its spire. For a long time there was a church inside, and a chapel nearby. But later the building was dismantled, making a through entrance.

The Spasskaya Tower is not the only one; only eight of the original thirteen have survived. No less interesting is Taynitskaya, also built in the 17th century. A massive lower and a miniature upper tier, a magnificent view of the city from the promenade - all this deserves attention.

Nizhny Novgorod Kremlin

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 wooden 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 be compared with the misfortune that would fall on Russia decades later - the country would plunge into the “Mongolian darkness”. Nizhny Novgorod will repeatedly leave Novgorod to be torn to pieces by the Tatars. The fortress will also be captured, however, this will happen in its "wooden" being. In the future, along with the growth of the city, the expansion of the fortress will also occur: stone walls and the gate Dmitrievskaya 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.
The Kremlin of Nizhny Novgorod is notable for the fact that of all Russian fortresses it has the largest height difference between its structures. The legend also adds glory: supposedly, somewhere in the local dungeons, the missing library of Ivan the Terrible is buried.

Astrakhan fortress

Kolomna fortress

The Kremlin was built by Italian masters for six years. Researchers believe that the construction was headed by the architect Aliviz Novy - a native of Venice or Milan, Aloisio Lamberti da Montagnana. And since 1528 Petrok Maly led the work.

16 towers were erected along the perimeter of the Kremlin; all the achievements of Western European fortification architecture of that time were used in the construction. The territory of 24 hectares was surrounded by a two-kilometer wall, the thickness of which was more than three meters, and the height of the walls was more than 20 meters.

August 15, 1531 construction was completed. The Kolomna Kremlin has become a first-class fortification, one of the most interesting buildings of its era. After that, Kolomna remained a military center for a long time: it was here in 1552 that the army of Ivan the Terrible gathered before the march on Kazan.

How many towers were originally - 16 or 17, is not exactly known. Only seven towers, including the gates, have survived to this day. By the middle of the 19th century, in some sections of the Kremlin there was no longer a single tower, only ruined walls.

The Pyatnitsky Gates, the four-sided Pogorelaya (Alekseevskaya) Tower, the Spasskaya Tower, the Simeonovskaya Tower, the Yamskaya (Troitskaya) Tower, the hexagonal Faceted Tower and the round Kolomenskaya (Marinkina) Tower, which is the tallest, have survived to this day. Marinkina she was nicknamed by the people in honor of Marina Mnishek. In the Time of Troubles, it was her fault that the impregnable fortress was taken by the Poles for the only time - Marina Mnishek fraudulently let them into the city. There is a legend that after these events, the traitor was imprisoned in the tower and died in it.

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 how this fortress is called today. It was built on the initiative of Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich, who sought to protect Smolensk from the Polish-Lithuanian invaders. The foundation stone 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 a 20-month siege by the Polish king Sigismund III, in 1708 it stopped the Swedish king Charles XII, who was marching on Moscow. In 1812, the French lost many soldiers near the walls of the Smolensk fortress, in retaliation they blew up 8 fortress towers. Initially, the length of the fortress walls was six and a half kilometers. Unfortunately, sections of no more than three kilometers in length have been preserved today. 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. It was not by chance that the place was chosen: 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 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 the walls, a hiding place and buildings in the 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 (Oreshek)

Founded at the source of the Neva on Orekhovy Island, the fortress received its second name - Oreshek. The initiator of the construction was in 1323 the grandson of Alexander Nevsky Yuri Danilovich. Built of wood at the age of 30, the fortress 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 around the perimeter of the entire island, new defensive 12-meter walls 4.5 meters thick. 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 in the fortress, which they called Noteburg. Only during the Northern War did it return to its old owners and was again renamed Shlisselburg, or "Key City". Since the 18th century, the fortress has been losing its defensive significance and has become a prison with notoriety and strict rules. For the slightest disobedience of the prisoners, execution awaited, the prisoners died of consumption and tuberculosis. For all the time no one managed to escape from the Shlisselburg fortress.

Vladivostok fortress

A unique monument of military-defensive architecture, which has no analogues in the world. The Vladivostok Fortress is the only Russian sea fortress that has been preserved since the 19th century and is included in the UNESCO list. The tsarist government, according to experts, invested very serious capital in its construction. In the 70s-90s of the 19th century, earthen batteries were built, which served as the main defense of the city. August 30, 1889 is considered the birthday of the fortress, when the naval keyser flag was raised over its walls. In 1916, on an area of ​​over 400 sq. meters, about 130 different forts, strongholds, fortifications and coastal batteries were erected with almost one and a half thousand guns. All buildings had telephone and visual communication, as well as the necessary communications, including ventilation and electricity. Thanks to the available reserves, the fortress could withstand a two-year siege. The grandiosity of the fortress frightened the enemies so much that they never dared to attack.

Porkhov fortress

One of the few fortresses with one-sided defense that have survived in the north-west of the country. Similar structures were erected in Russia from the middle of the 14th century until the end of the 15th century. Laid the Porkhov fortress, as well as most of the entire defensive system of the Novgorod Principality, Alexander Nevsky. 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 14th century, the Lithuanians so increased the power of their attacks and their number that the Novgorodians urgently began to erect stone walls. It is curious that these walls are the first walls of a Russian fortress that can withstand blows from gunpowder weapons. In the second half of the 18th century, the fortress fell into such a state that, in order to protect the people from 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 military Novgorod architecture of the XIV-XV centuries is open to tourists.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http:// www. all best. en/

Hosted at http://www.allbest.ru/

Introduction

urban planning frontier fortress

The relevance of the topic of the course work. The layout of settlements and especially cities largely reflects the level of development of a given society. Site selection, adaptation to the terrain and the surrounding landscape, distribution essential elements the future of the city (fortifications, roads, market square, residential areas) already in antiquity was the subject of reflection and discussion. Overcoming spontaneity and introducing an element of rational calculation serves as an indicator of a high level of development.

In relation to the history of Russian cities, for a long time it was believed that for the first time rational planning according to a pre-planned plan was carried out only at the end of the 18th century. during the so-called general survey. Long-term studies of scientists, historians and philosophers in the field of the history of Russian architecture and urban planning have established that urban planning principles arose much earlier, that in the 16th-17th centuries. in Russia, carefully considered and firmly enforced rules for the construction of new cities were already being applied. Thus, the theme of the course work "Russian cities of the 16th-17th centuries" is relevant.

For research, we have chosen cities of the 16th-17th centuries. Firstly, because we have authentic documents of that time concerning the construction of cities. The fact is that it was at this time that the organized storage of written materials began, which were deposited in state institutions. Currently, they are in various archives of the USSR. Secondly, the cities themselves, built in that period, have been preserved.

In many of them, there are still not only individual buildings and ensembles of the 16th-17th centuries, but entire areas that bear the stamp of the original building, which makes it possible to imagine the original appearance of these cities. Basically, these are small and medium-sized cities in the central strip of Russia, the North and Siberia: Kargopol, Ustyug the Great, Ustyuzhna, Lalsk, Staraya Russa, Smolensk, Vyazma, Dorogobuzh, Volkhov, Gorokhovets, Ples, Vyazniki, Michurinsk (Kozlov). Tambov, Irkutsk, Tobolsk, Penza, Syzran, etc.

Cities of this type are called picturesque, irregular, free planning. However, all these names, in our opinion, do not correspond to their essence, because they were built on a legislative basis.

Since the city is a complex socio-economic, political, ideological organism, representatives of various sciences dealt with it: economists, lawyers, jurists, and most of all historians. Back in the 18th century a wide publication of documents on the history of the Russian state began.

The degree of development of the research topic. Many works of pre-revolutionary historians N.M. Karamzin, S.M. Solovyova, A.P. Prigara, I.I. Dityatina, D.I. Korsakov, A.P. Shchapova, P.N. Milyukova, N.A. Rozhkova, A.A. Kizevetter, K.V. Nevolina, N.D. Chechulin, D.A. Samokvasov and others are connected with the problem of the city. However, questions about the methods of urban planning were not considered in them. A number of studies by pre-revolutionary historians are devoted to the management of work in the construction of fortresses, security lines, the role and activities of governors in the city (the works of B.N. Chicherin, I. Andrievsky, A.I. Yakovlev), which is important for our study.

Another part of urban planning historians believes that in Russia already in the 16th century. regular town planning began to take shape. So, V.V. Kirillov believes that the Siberian cities, in particular Tobolsk, founded in the 16th century, were built according to the plan and were cities with a regular layout, as for irregular cities with a free layout, they, in his opinion, in the 16th-17th centuries. formed spontaneously.

Subject of this study- features of urban planning of Russian cities in the XVI-XVII centuries.

Object of study- Russian cities in the XVI-XVII centuries.

The purpose of the course work- to conduct a study and identify the features of the construction of Russian cities in the period of the XVI-XVII centuries. In accordance with a certain object, subject and purpose of the study, one can formulate course work tasks:

1. Consider the characteristic features and types of urban planning in Russia in the XVI-XVII centuries.

2. Identify the general provisions for the planning of new Russian cities of the 16th century

3. Determine the development of Russian urban planning in the 17th century. on the territory of the European part of the Russian state

theoretical basiscourse were the works of such researchers as: Alferova G.V., Buganov V.I., Sakharov A.N., Vityuk E.Yu., Vzdornov G.I., Vladimirov V.V., Savarenskaya T.F., Smolyar I. .M., Zagidullin I.K., Ivanov Yu.G., Ilyin M.A., Kirillov V.V., Krom M.M., Lantsov S.A., Mazaev A.G., Nosov N.E. ., Orlov A.S., Georgiev V.A., Georgiev N.G., Sivokhina T.A., Polyan P. et al.

The structure of the course work based on a combination of territorial and chronological principles. The work consists of an introduction, three chapters, a conclusion, a list of references and literature and applications.

The first chapter presents the characteristic features of Russia in the 16th-17th centuries, and also systematizes the types of cities in the Russian state of the 16th-17th centuries. The second chapter deals with the features of urban development of the border fortress cities, the Russian fortress cities of the 16th century are considered. The third chapter is devoted to the peculiarities of the construction of Russian cities in the 17th century, organizational measures for the construction of cities on fortified borders are presented.

1. Characteristic features and types of urban planning in Russia in the XVI-XVII centuries.

1.1 Characteristic features of Russia in the XVI-XVII centuries.

Russia in the XVI-XVII centuries. experienced the most important periods of its history, putting it among the largest powers in Europe. Internal political struggle of the 16th century. led to increased centralization of the state, based on the service nobility and landownership, and to the enslavement of the peasantry. The union with the church gave the state a strong ideological support and promoted the use of some of the achievements of ancient and Near Eastern societies through the Byzantine tradition. The inclusion of the Kazan and Astrakhan khanates in Russia secured the existence of the country from the east and opened up opportunities for the development of new lands.

The ensuing annexation of Siberia marked the beginning of the development of this region both by the state authorities and working population. Peasant and urban uprisings that engulfed Russia in the 17th century were the response of the working masses to those contradictory processes that were going on in the country. The “new period” of Russian history, which began in the 17th century, is associated with the formation of the all-Russian market, which united different parts of the country not only politically and administratively (which was done by the state authorities), but also economically.

One of the characteristic features of the development of Russia in the XVI-XVII centuries. there was the emergence of a large number of new cities, significant urban construction. Here we have in mind the increase in the number of cities, not only in the socio-economic sense of the term, when we mean settlements, a significant part of the inhabitants of which were engaged in commercial and industrial activities. Many fortified cities were built, which had military and defensive significance. In the second half of the XVI century. more than 50 new cities are known, for the middle of the 17th century. researchers indicate 254 cities, of which about 180 were settlements, the inhabitants of which were officially engaged in trade and crafts. In a number of cases, as shown in this book, when a new city was founded, its walls were built simultaneously with residential and public premises.

The structure of Russian cities before the 18th century, both new ones built in the 16th-17th centuries, and old ones that continued to live at that time, are characterized by features that made it possible to call them free-planning landscape cities. This system assumes that the location of the buildings under construction, their complexes, the number of storeys (height) and orientation along the natural landscape - low and high places, slopes and ravines, implies a connection with natural reservoirs, the allocation of dominant buildings visible from all points of the corresponding city district, sufficient the distance between buildings and building blocks, forming “gaps” and fire zones, etc. Construction according to a regular layout, which began in Russia with the construction of St. Petersburg and became stereotypical in the 18th-19th centuries, was largely deprived of these features. It was based on other aesthetic principles and borrowed a lot from Western European medieval cities, although in Russia it acquired national features. Western European cities were characterized by the desire to accommodate the maximum number of buildings with residential and industrial premises on the minimum area limited by city walls, which led to the construction of houses along narrow streets that formed a solid wall, to a large number of storeys of buildings, while the upper floors hung over the street.

As can be seen from the above history of the City Law in Russia, it appeared here only in the second half of the 13th century. and until that time, his establishments “On the building of new houses ...” were not known in our country. We have no data to judge whether any other urban planning norms were known then in Russia, which received written fixation: until our times from the 11th-13th centuries. only a small proportion of the works came down, which does not reflect the entire composition of the books that existed in Russia at that time.

However, it would be unjustified to believe that urban planning in Ancient Russia was carried out without a system: archaeological research refutes this. The Russian free-planning system most likely arose and developed on the basis of the landscape conditions of the East European Plain, the presence of certain building materials, existing aesthetic principles, traditional norms of relations between the owners of estates, as well as the rules for erecting defensive structures that existed among the Eastern Slavs. This local system, developed and put into practice over many centuries, has, at least since the advent of translated Byzantine statutes and rites of consecration, received written form and authoritative support in legal collections recognized by the Church. XVI-XVII centuries - this is exactly the time when the construction of cities could already be carried out on the basis of existing written norms

1.2 Types of cities in the Russian state of the XVI-XVII centuries

The cities built in Russia before the 18th century were irregular and had a free planning structure. For a long time, this was explained by the fact that such cities arose spontaneously or were formed from overgrown villages and villages. This point of view was led by insufficient knowledge of the history of Russian urban planning. Russian ancient cities were denied the presence of an urban planning concept in them.

Therefore, the reconstruction of such cities was carried out without taking into account their original system and artistic patterns.

As a result, urban planning mistakes were made, which often led to the death of the expressive silhouettes of ancient cities.

The reconstruction of free planning cities in accordance with the requirements of the regular system began to be carried out with late XVIII in. This process continues up to the present day, as a result of which ancient Russian architecture has suffered irreparable losses. During the reconstruction, many architectural monuments were demolished; the surviving ancient buildings often fell into the "well" of new development. Mass new construction did not take into account the spatial system of historical cities, their artistic patterns.

This was especially pronounced in large cities (Moscow, Novgorod, Kursk, Orel, Pskov, Gorky, Smolensk, etc.); medium and small ones were less distorted. In addition, the reconstruction did not take into account the natural landscape of the area. For the convenience of new construction in the old parts of the city, the city territory was leveled: ditches, ravines were filled up, rocky outcrops were smoothed out.

All this caused alarm in the general scientific community. By this time, historical science already had fundamental works on the history of cities by academicians M.N. Tikhomirova, B.A. Rybakova, L.V. Cherepnin and others. But the city planners, unfortunately, did not use their work.

Reconstruction and construction in ancient cities were carried out without a scientific, historical and architectural background.

Management of the Russian state of the XVI-XVII centuries. was based on the principles of centralized, autocratic power. It can be assumed that the same strict organization was also the basis of urban planning.

In the XVI and XVII centuries. more than 200 new cities were built; at the same time, the reconstruction of the ancient ones was carried out. Without a well-thought-out, well-organized urban planning system, it would be impossible to create such a number of cities in a short time. The emergence of new state institutions - orders and contributed to the streamlining of urban planning.

In the XVI - early XVIII century. orders were central government bodies in Russia and permanent institutions in the Russian centralized state, in contrast to the temporary and flexible form of government in the period of feudal fragmentation. Each order was in charge of the range of issues entrusted to it.

However, cases related to the construction of cities were in the archives of various orders. So in the Discharge Order, which was in charge of the personnel and service of the local troops, the largest number of cases related to the construction of cities, as well as hand-drawn drawings of the cities, was kept.

The archives of the Local Order, which was in charge of providing the troops with land, kept scribe and census books for the territory under its jurisdiction. These books are the most important documents, on the basis of which taxes were collected, patrimonial and local land ownership was accurately recorded.

Therefore, in the office work of the Local Order, hand-drawn drawings were necessarily drawn up, which have survived to this day and give a vivid idea of ​​the land plots, cities and villages of the 16th-17th centuries.

The restructuring of the Yamskaya chase system (this restructuring was due to the fact that the growth of cities made it necessary to streamline communication between them) led to the creation of the Yamsky order. Big number cases relating to the construction of cities, is in the funds Embassy order, the order of the Kazan Palace and the Siberian order.

There was also a special order of the City Affairs, first mentioned in 1577-1578. New materials with documents of the City Order were found by V.I. Buganov in the TsGADA as part of the fund of Livonian and Estonian affairs. These documents, published in 1965, reveal the activities of the City Order. The order organized a pit service in Livonian cities, provided service people with bread and other products, distributed salaries to them, repaired Livonian fortresses taken by the Russians, and erected fortifications.

By the middle of the XVII century. the number of orders reached 80. This complex, cumbersome system of administration was not able to cope with the tasks facing the emerging absolutist state.

The diversity, diversity of orders, the fuzziness of the distribution of areas of administration between them led to their elimination at the beginning of the 18th century. The longest-lived Siberian order, which was in effect until the middle of the 18th century.

All the vast material of the clerk's office work was little used in order to identify the documents contained in it related to urban planning. The study of these archives from this point of view is just beginning, but already the first steps taken in this direction make it possible to imagine the methods of building cities in the 16th-17th centuries, to establish their types.

In addition to state cities in the XVI-XVII centuries. there were still privately owned cities. An example of privately owned cities is the "muzhik city" Shestakov, built in the middle of the 16th century. on the old riverbed Vyatka. It is known that a number of privately owned cities in the XVI and XVII centuries. were built by the Stroganovs in central Russia, in the north of the European part in Siberia.

The construction of state cities was sometimes entrusted to private individuals. So, in 1645, the guest Mikhail Guryev was allowed to build a stone city on Yaik, and for this, the Yaik and Embi fisheries were given to him for a seven-year maintenance without dues. However, the son of a boyar, subordinate to the governor, was assigned to supervise the work. For privately owned cities during this period there was state supervision, and it was possible to build them only with the permission of the government. When Bogdan Yakovlevich Velsky in 1600 began to build the city of Tsarev-Borisov at his own expense, this served as a pretext for his cruel punishment by the Godunovs.

Privately owned and state cities differed from each other in the form of government. In the XVI century. the management of state cities was carried out through city clerks, chosen from among the county service people, subordinate to the governors, and in the 17th century. - through the governor, subordinate to orders. This form of city management made it possible to exercise royal power in the localities, to receive all the income that went from the urban population to the state. Privately owned cities were managed by the owner of the city or by a person subordinate to him and controlled by him. All income from such a city was received by its owner.

In addition, the cities of this period can be classified according to another feature - functional. Cities were built and developed depending on state needs. A large number of cities performed administrative functions. The so-called industrial cities were widely used, where salt production and metal processing developed. There were cities that specialized in trade. Many of them, having arisen in antiquity, acquired commercial significance only during the period of addition centralized state. Port cities stood out among the trading cities.

However, regardless of the main socio-economic purpose, all cities in the ХV1-ХVП centuries. performed a defensive function. The country's defense was public affairs. Therefore, the city had to organize the protection of not only the townspeople, but also the inhabitants of the whole county. The nature of their fortifications and general appearance was strictly regulated by the state.

2. General provisions for the planning of new Russian cities of the 16th century

2.1 Peculiarities of town planning of border towns-fortresses

The devastation caused by the Tatar raids, which again became more frequent from the second half of the 14th century, forced the Russian population to abandon the most fertile lands and move north of the steppe to areas more or less protected by forests and rivers. By the end of the XIV century. The main burden of the fight against the Tatars was assumed by the Ryazan principality, which was forced to set up guard posts far in the steppe to warn the population about the movements of nomads. Rare settlements of Ryazanians ended near the mouth of the river. Voronezh, then a devastated strip began, reaching the river. Medveditsa, beyond which the nomad camps of the Tatars were already located.

At the end of the 15th century, after the complete subjugation of the Ryazan principality, Moscow inherited all the concerns of the Ryazan people to protect the southeastern outskirts of the state. Initially, the Moscow government limited itself to strengthening the protection of the river bank. Oka, for which service Tatar "princes" were used, located in a number of cities along the Oka (Kashira, Serpukhov, Kasimov, etc.). Soon, however, the insufficiency of this measure became clear. In 1521, the combined forces of the Crimean and Kazan Tatars broke through to Moscow, and although they did not take the capital, they devastated its environs and took with them a huge number of prisoners. The raid of 1521 prompted the united Russian state to reorganize the defense system of its southern and eastern border. First of all, attention had to be paid to southern front, as the most dangerous, replete with Tatar paths, along which nomads from the steppes quickly made their way to the borders of Russia. Regiments began to be sent regularly to the "shore", and guard detachments were deployed to the south of the Oka. In the 50s of the XVI century. the locations of the troops were fortified, shafts were drawn between them, and notches were arranged in wooded places and, thus, the first line of defense was created - the so-called Tula notch line. This feature included the reconstructed fortresses of a number of old cities and three newly built cities - Volkhov, Shatsk and Dedilov.

In 1576, the border line was supplemented by a number of reconstructed cities - fortresses and several new ones. At the same time, the border significantly advanced one edge to the west (fortified cities of Pochep, Starodub, Serpeysk).

Under the protection of the fortified line, the population quickly spread to the south. For the security of the newly occupied lands from Tatar raids, it was necessary to push strongly to the south and the fortified border of the state. As a result, the government of Tsar Fedor - Boris Godunov vigorously continued the urban planning activities of Ivan IV. In March 1586, an order was given to put on the river. Fast Pine Livny, on the river. Voronezh - Voronezh. In 1592, the city of Yelets was restored, and in 1593-94. cities were built: Belgorod, later transferred to another place, Stary Oskol, Valuyki, Kromy, in 1597 Kursk was rebuilt and, finally, the last in the 16th century. was built on the river. Oskol city of Tsarevo-Borisov, the most advanced to the south.

The implementation of an extensive urban planning program and the intensive settlement of the southern outskirts connected with this secured the state from the south and significantly increased the economic and cultural significance of this most fertile region.

From the middle of the same century, a number of new cities were being built on the eastern outskirts of the Russian state.

Geographical conditions made it extremely difficult for the Russian people to fight against the nomads. Bare, uninhabited steppes, the vast length of the borders, the absence of clear and strong natural boundaries south of the Oka - all this required tremendous effort in the fight against mobile, semi-wild nomads. Already by the beginning of the XVI century. it became clear that only passive defense in the form of a fortified border line was far from sufficient to secure the state from the devastation of its outskirts.

Only a strong centralized state could resist their onslaught. As I.V. Stalin “... the interests of defense against the invasion of the Turks, Mongols and other peoples of the East demanded the immediate formation of centralized states capable of withstanding the pressure of the invasion. And since in the east of Europe the process of the emergence of centralized states was faster than the process of folding people into nations, mixed states were formed there, consisting of several peoples that had not yet formed into a nation, but were already united in a common state.

A major step in this direction was the conquest of the Kazan Khanate, which constantly threatened the Russian state from the east. Until the beginning of the XVI century. Nizhny Novgorod, located at a distance of about 400 km from Kazan and separated from it by vast desert spaces, was the most significant point that could serve to monitor the actions of the Tatars. Therefore, in order to prevent unexpected invasions of the Tatars in the Volga region, it was very important here, as well as on the southern outskirts, to advance the fortified cities, using them for observation and defense, as well as points of concentration of the population. They were supposed to serve as shelters for messengers and merchants heading to Kazan. The first such point was the new city of Vasil-Sursk, built in 1523 on the upland side of the Volga, at the confluence of the river. Sura. The construction of this city advanced the front line of defense 150 km down the Volga. Sura, former border river, is now firmly attached to the Russian state. Nevertheless, Kazan was still far away and, as a number of unsuccessful campaigns showed, the remoteness of the strongholds prevented decisive measures against the Kazan Khanate.

Retreating in 1549 from Kazan after an unsuccessful siege, Ivan IV stopped on the river. Sviyage and drew attention to the convenience of this area for the construction of a solid military base, which was supposed to "inflict crowding on the Kazan land." The place chosen for the device of the city was on a rounded high hill at the confluence of the river. Sviyaga to the Volga, just 20 km from Kazan. The elevated position of the city should have made it impregnable, especially during the spring flood. Its location at the mouth of the Sviyaga blocked access to the Volga for the local peoples who lived in the basin of this river and helped the Kazan Tatars a lot, and its proximity to Kazan made it possible to organize a first-class base for a future siege. So that the Kazan people do not interfere with the construction of the city, all parts of its fortifications and the main internal buildings were harvested in the depths of the country - in the Uglitsky district. Thanks to the measures taken, the landing of the builders and the assembly of the city from the prepared parts were carried out in complete secrecy, and the city (in 1551) was built in just four weeks. The calculations of Ivan IV were fully justified. Already immediately after the construction of the city, called Sviyazhsk, the population of the upland side (Chuvash, Cheremis, Mordovians) expressed a desire to join the Russians, and Kazan agreed to recognize the king of the Russian protege Shig-Aley.

Soon, however, the hostile actions of the Tatars forced Ivan IV to undertake a new campaign to conquer Kazan. In 1552, after a long and difficult campaign, the Russian army reached its base, Sviyazhsk. Here the soldiers had the opportunity to rest and refresh themselves, because food supplies were brought along the Volga in such abundance that, in the words of Kurbsky, each participant in the campaign came here "as if in his own home." After a month and a half siege, Kazan was taken, and Sviyazhsk, thus, brilliantly fulfilled the task assigned to it.

In 1556, shortly after the capture of Kazan, it was annexed to the Russian state without a fight and Astrakhan was fortified. The consolidation of the mouth of the Volga for Russia made it finally a river of the Russian state, and the movement of the Russian people resumed in the Volga region, interrupted for a long time in the 13th century. Tatar invasion.

The Kazan nobility did not abandon their attempts to regain their dominant position. In its struggle, it relied on the top of the nationalities that were once part of the Kazan Khanate. There remained a constant threat of attacks on Russian merchant ships and caravans traveling along the Volga, on Russian peaceful settlements that grew up in the Middle Volga region, and on the possessions of Russian feudal lords.

A considerable influence on the choice of a place for the first cities of the Volga region was exerted by the desire to reduce the distance between those points along the Volga route where ships could stop - to stock up on food and replenish their service people. In the light of these circumstances, it becomes clear that in 1556 the city of Cheboksary (now the capital of the Chuvash ASSR) was established on the elevated bank of the Volga at the confluence of the Cheboksarka River, almost in the middle of the way between Nizhny Novgorod and Kazan

Later, in connection with the uprising of the Cheremis, another city was built, this time on the meadow side of the Volga, between Cheboksary and Sviyazhsk. This city, built between the mouths of two significant rivers - the Bolshaya and Malaya Kokshaga, received the name Kokshaisk (now the city of Yoshkar-Ola - the capital of the Mari ASSR) with the epithet "new city", which was applied to it for several years.

A special group is formed by new cities built to control river transport through the Kama and the Volga. So, in order to protect against the "arrival of the Nogai people" in 1557, the city of Laishev was placed on the right, elevated bank of the river. Kama, not far from its mouth. Shortly after Laishev, for the same purpose, the city of Tetyushi was built on the right side of the Volga, 40 km below the confluence of the Kama.

The town-planning policy of Ivan IV in the Volga region was continued by the government of Tsar Fedor - Boris Godunov, who built the cities of Tsivilsk, Urzhum and others.

Of particular importance for the protection of the region was the device of the city at the mouth of the river. Samara. The Samara River most of all attracted the attention of the Nogais, as the most convenient place for nomadism in the summer and for crossing. In addition, there were places on the Samara bow where the Cossacks could easily hide and from where they could unexpectedly attack the Volga caravans. In addition, at the mouth of the Samara, it was most convenient to arrange a good pier for ships. These circumstances explain the construction in 1586 of the first grassroots city of Samara (now the city of Kuibyshev). At the same time, the city of Ufa (now the capital of the Bashkir Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic) was built on the tributary of the Kama - the Belaya River - the city of Ufa, also intended, apparently, to protect against the Nogais.

Another place on the Volga, which was of great strategic importance, was undoubtedly the so-called "Perevoloka", where the Volga approaches another important water artery - the Don. "Perevoloka" could be used by the Nogais who wanted to get into the Crimea, and also as a junction of the Crimean Tatars with the Nogais for the joint robbery of the Russian outskirts. It is therefore natural that here, at the confluence of the Tsaritsa River into the Volga, a new city was built - Tsaritsyn (now the city of Stalingrad), the first reliable information about which dates back to 1589. Somewhat later "on the left bank of the Volga, also for strategic reasons, was the city of Saratov was built, 10 kilometers higher than the present Saratov, which arose already at the beginning of the 17th century. on the other side.

2.2 Russian fortified cities of the 16th century

The energetic urban planning activity of the Russian state, due to the need to protect and advance its borders, caused shifts in planning technology. Throughout the 16th century these shifts affected mainly the fortified elements of the city - kremlins, prisons.

Previously, during the period of feudal fragmentation, the fortifications of the city were usually aimed at protecting the population and its wealth, concentrated within the walls. Fortresses thus played a passive role in the defense of the country. Now new fortresses are being built, and the old frontier towns are again being fortified as strongholds for sentry and stanitsa service and for accommodating troops, who, at the first signal, rush to the enemy who appeared near the border. The center of gravity of the defense is transferred from the fortress to the field, and the fortress itself becomes only a temporary shelter for the garrison, which needs protection only from a sudden attack.

In addition, the fortresses were not the objects of attack by the nomad robbers, whose main goal was to break through in any gap between the fortified points to the territory of peaceful settlements, plunder them, take away the prisoners and quickly hide in the "wild field". The steppe nomads could not and never tried to conduct a proper siege or destroy cities. However, quite often they dug a shaft in some place, cut through gouges and in other similar ways tried to get inside the fortress.

The rounded shape of the fortress with passive defense and primitive military equipment gave a number of advantages. It provided the largest capacity for a fortified point with the smallest defensive fence line and, therefore, required a minimum number of defenders on the walls. In addition, with a rounded shape, there were no so-called "dead" angles of fire.

With the transition from passive to active defense, with the development of firearms, with the device of peals and towers for flank shelling, the rounded shape of the fortress fence loses its advantages and preference is given to the quadrangular shape of the fortification, and with a significant size of the city - polygonal (polygonal). Although the configuration of the fortress is still greatly influenced by topographic conditions, now in each case the choice of a specific configuration is already a compromise between them and a quadrangle (or polygon), and not a circle or an oval, as it was before. At the end of the XV - beginning of the XVI centuries. the shape of a rectangle (or a regular polygon) is already clearly expressed in Russian urban planning.

In 1509, Tula, which shortly before passed to the Muscovite state, was rebuilt and re-fortified as an important strategic point on the outskirts of Moscow. The former fortified place on the Tulitsa River was abandoned, and on the left bank of the river. Upa, a new fortress was laid in the form of a double oak wall with cuts and towers. The new wooden fortress in general took the form of a crescent, leaning on its

ends on the river bank. But already five years later, in 1514, following the model of the Moscow Kremlin, the construction of an internal stone fortress was started, which was completed in 1521.

If the fortress wall of 1509 was only a fortified bypass of a populated area, then the stone fortress, in its clear, geometrically correct form, quite clearly expressed the idea of ​​​​a fortified container of the garrison, the idea of ​​\u200b\u200ba structure that has its own regularity and does not depend on local conditions. However, in the internal planning of the fortress, the rectangular - rectilinear system did not receive a complete development. This can be seen on the plan of its restoration (Fig. 1, appendix 1), this can also be judged by the different position of the gate in the longitudinal walls.

The geometric method of construction is more clearly expressed in the Zaraisk fortress (built in 1531), where not only the external configuration, but, apparently, the internal layout was subject to a certain mathematical design. In any case, the location of the gate along two mutually perpendicular axes makes us assume the presence of two corresponding highways (Fig. 2, Appendix 1). Samples of regular fortresses, only slightly deviating from the mathematically correct form, we see on the plans of some other cities. So, for example, a fortress in the form of a relatively regular trapezoid is visible on the plan of the city of Mokshan (now the district center of the Penza region), built in 1535 (Fig. 3, appendix 1) district center of the Kursk region), built in 1593 (Fig. 5, Appendix 1). From the cities of the Volga region of the XVI century. the most regular shape (in the form of a rhombus) was obtained by the fortress of Samara (now the city of Kuibyshev), shown in fig. 4, appendix 1.

These few examples show that already in the first half of the 16th century. Russian town builders were familiar with the principles of "regular" fortification art. However, the construction of the fortresses of the Tula defensive line in the middle of the XVI century. carried on for the most part according to the old principle. The need to strengthen many points in the shortest possible time caused a desire to maximize the use of natural defensive resources (steep slopes of ravines, river banks, etc.) with a minimum addition of artificial structures.

As a rule, in cities built or reconstructed in the 16th century, the subordination of the form of a fortress to topographic conditions still dominated. This type of fortress also includes the fortifications of Sviyazhek, encircling a rounded “native” mountain in accordance with its relief (Fig. 6 and Fig. 7 Appendix 1).

Historical and social conditions of the XVI century. influenced the planning of the “residential” part of the new cities, i.e. for the planning of settlements and settlements.

It should be emphasized that the state, building new cities, sought to use them primarily as points of defense. The restless situation in the vicinity of cities prevented the creation of a normal agricultural base, which was necessary for their development as settlements. Cities on the outskirts of the state had to be supplied with everything necessary from the central regions.

Some of the new cities, such as Kursk and especially Voronezh, due to their favorable location, quickly acquired commercial importance, but, as a rule, during the 16th century. the new cities remained purely military settlements. This does not mean, of course, that their inhabitants were engaged only in military affairs. As you know, service people in their free time were engaged in crafts, crafts, trade, and agriculture. The military character of the settlements was reflected mainly in the very composition of the population.

In all the new cities we meet an insignificant number of so-called "residential" people - townspeople and peasants. The bulk of the “population was made up of service (i.e. military) people. But unlike the central cities, the lowest category of servicemen prevailed here - “instrument” people: Cossacks, archers, spearmen, gunners, zatinshchiks, collars, security guards, state blacksmiths, carpenters, etc. In an insignificant number among the population of new cities there were nobles and children boyar. The predominance of service people in the composition of the population of the lowest rank should undoubtedly have been reflected in the nature of land ownership.

The supply of service people with everything necessary from the center made it extremely difficult for the treasury, which sought, wherever possible, to increase the number of "local" people who received land plots instead of salaries. As the advanced positions moved south, the previously built fortresses spontaneously overgrown with settlements and settlements. If the construction of the fortress itself was the work of state bodies, then the building and settlement of the settlements in the 16th century. occurred, apparently, as a result of local initiative on lands allocated by the state.

From the surviving orders to the governors-builders of the late 16th century. it can be seen that the military people went to the newly built cities only for a certain period, after which they disbanded and were replaced by new ones.

Even much later, namely in the first half * of the 17th century, the government, carried out, did not immediately decide on the forcible resettlement of military people "with wives and children and with all their bellies" to new cities "for eternal life." From this it is clear why in the cities built in the 16th century there is still no regular planning of residential areas. In almost all these cities, at least in the parts closest to the fortress, the street network developed according to the traditional radial system, showing a tendency, on the one hand, to the fortified center, and on the other hand, to the roads to the surroundings and neighboring villages. In some cases, a tendency to the formation of ring directions is noticeable.

Carefully considering the plans of new cities of the 16th century, one can still notice in many of them a calmer and more correct outline of quarters than in old cities, the desire for a uniform width of quarters and other signs of rational planning. The irregularities, kinks, and dead ends encountered here are the result of the gradual unregulated growth of the city, in many cases - adaptation to difficult topographic conditions. They have little in common with the bizarre capricious forms in the plans of the old cities - Vyazma, Rostov the Great, Nizhny Novgorod and others.

New cities of the 16th century almost did not know the remnants of the land chaos of the period of feudal fragmentation, which so hampered the rational development of old cities. It is also possible that the governors, who monitored the state of the fortified city, to a certain extent paid attention to the planning of the settlements that arose in new cities, as a rule, on lands free from development, to the observance of some order in the tracing of streets and roads that had military significance. The distribution of plots near the city was undoubtedly to be regulated by the governors, because the organization of the border defense covered a significant territory on both sides of the fortified line.

The foregoing is confirmed by the plans of the cities of Volkhov, first mentioned in 1556 (Fig. 8, Appendix 1), and Alatyr, the first reliable information about which dates back to 1572 (Fig. 9, Appendix 1).

In these plans, immediately from the square adjacent to the Kremlin, a slender fan of radial streets is visible. Some breaks in them do not in the least interfere with the clarity of the overall system. In both plans, groups of quarters of uniform width are noticeable, which indicates a certain desire for standardization of estates. We see a sharp change in the size of the quarters and a violation of the overall harmony of the planning system only on the outskirts of the suburbs, where the settlements developed, apparently, independently and only later merged with the cities into a common array.

In the plans of these cities there are streets, as if revealing a desire to form quadrangular quarters. A similarity of a rectangular-rectilinear layout is more definitely expressed in the fortified settlement of the city of Tsivilsk (built in 1584), where the desire is clearly visible to divide the entire, albeit very small, territory into rectangular quarters (Fig. 10, appendix 1) p. The planning of this settlement was associated, as an exception for the 16th century, with an organized settlement of a certain group of people.

3. The development of Russian urban planning in the 17th century. on the territory of the European part of the Russian state

3.1 Features of the construction of Russian cities in the XVII century

During the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich, the construction of new cities received significant development in connection with the further strengthening and expansion of state borders. New cities that have been created since that time on the territory of the European part of Russia can be divided into three groups:

Cities that were built by the government and populated by Russian "translators" and "skhodtsy" for the defense of the central part of the state and the newly occupied territories in the "wild field", i.e. in the steppe, “not belonging to any nationalities and only temporarily occupied by the nomadic Tatars.

Cities that were built and settled with the permission and with the assistance of the Moscow government by Ukrainian immigrants from the Polish-Lithuanian state (the Commonwealth). These cities had a dual purpose: firstly, as a refuge for the population who fled from the oppression of the Polish-Lithuanian pans; secondly, as points of defense of the southern and southwestern borders of the Russian state.

Cities that were built by the government to consolidate and expand their influence in the Volga region among the peoples that joined the centralized Russian state.

The first group of cities arose mainly in connection with the design of the so-called Belgorod line as an extreme border line. This feature included 27 cities, and half of them were founded in the previous reign. Of the cities located on the very Belgorod line, only Ostrogozhsk and Akhtyrka were arranged by Ukrainian immigrants and therefore should be assigned to the second group. Most of the fortresses of the Belgorod line in the XVIII century. ceased to exist as cities and therefore was not subjected to topographic surveys in the period preceding the massive urban redevelopment. Of the few city plans of this group that have come down to us, the plans of Korotoyak and Belgorod are of the greatest interest.

The city of Korotoyak was built in 1648 on the right bank of the Don at the confluence of the rivers Korotoyachki and Voronka. The fortress was a regular quadrangle (almost a square) with a perimeter of about 1000 m (Fig. 1, Appendix 2).

According to the inventory of 1648, inside the fortress there were: a cathedral, a moving out hut, a voivodship house and, which is of the greatest interest to us, siege yards for 500 people. Three settlements for 450 servicemen were located around the "city" with a distance of 64 m from it. The population consisted of immigrants who came from Voronezh, Efremov, Lebedyan, Epifan, Dankov and other places. Apparently, the resettlement was accompanied by simultaneous land management, since the plan clearly shows the desire to place estate plots in quarters of uniform width, forming an approximate rectangular-rectilinear system that covered all three settlements, i.e. the entire residential area as a whole. There is no longer a trace of the traditional network of gradual radial-circular growth around the Kremlin, but nevertheless, the fortress with its 30-yard (64 m) esplanade forms a clear city center, clearly included in the overall composition of the plan.

The main point of the Belgorod line - the city of Belgorod was founded under Tsar Fedor Ivanovich in 1593. From the "Book of the Big Drawing" we learn that Belgorod stood on the right side of the Donets, on White Mountain, and after the "Lithuanian ruin" was moved to the other side Donets. Subsequently (not later than 1665) Belgorod was again moved to the right bank, to the place where it is located at the present time.

In 1678 Belgorod was already one of the most significant cities of the Russian state. According to the description, it consisted of an inner wooden prison with a perimeter of about 649 sazhens. (1385 w) with 10 towers and an outer earthen rampart with a perimeter of 1588 sazhens (3390 m) that covered the city from the Vezelka River to the Donets River.

In the city plan of 1767 (Fig. 2, appendix 2), three main parts are visible: the central fortress of a regular quadrangular shape and two massifs of suburban buildings - eastern and western. The earthen rampart that covered the entire complex has already disappeared, but the contour of the developed territory can be used to judge its former position.

On the plan of the Belgorod fortress of the XVII century. (Fig. 3, appendix 3) its internal layout is clearly visible. Along the entire northern longitudinal wall stretched a long rectangular area with various buildings rarely located on it. In the middle, a rectangular square also adjoins it, deepening into the fortress to the south. So about-

at once, we got a total T-shaped area, with a short vertical part, on which the cathedral church with a separate bell tower was located. On the eastern side of the cathedral square is a large rectangular quarter of the metropolitan courtyard, which occupies almost a quarter of the entire built-up territory of the fortress; on the western side - a smaller "residential" courtyard, fenced, according to the description of 1678, with oak logs. The rest of the territory of the fortress is divided into relatively regular rectangular quarters of various sizes, in which 76 courtyards of the military authorities and the clergy, as well as some of the Belgorod "residential" people, were placed. In contrast to the layout of the kremlin in the old cities, which bears traces of gradual development, there undoubtedly took place a regular breakdown according to a premeditated plan, subject to a certain compositional design.

The eastern part of the suburb, apparently, is of an earlier origin. It has all the features of old towns slowly growing up in a primitive radial system, with an extremely irregular network of streets and lanes, and with quarters of the most indefinite form. The complete opposite of it is the Streltsy settlement, located, according to the description, outside the city - between the rampart and the river Vezelka, that is, as the western settlement is located on the plan. The rectangular-rectilinear layout, although not fully expressed here, is nevertheless clearer than in all previously considered plans, and, in addition, covers the territory of a large independent region. Attention is drawn to the relatively small size of the quarters in width, which corresponds to the above description, according to which the voivodship yard had dimensions of 26X22 sazhens. (55X47 m), and the yards of tenants - 6X5 soots. (13X10.5 m).

Let us now turn to the consideration of new cities, the emergence or settlement of which was caused by the mass transfer of the Ukrainian population to the territory of the Russian state.

The resettlement of small groups from Lithuania began already from the time it conquered a number of Russian principalities. At the end of the XVI century. under the influence of serfdom and the persecution of national culture, the number of Ukrainians entering the Russian state service increases significantly. However, until 1639, Lithuanian immigrants settled in the outskirts of Russian cities and became the same subjects as Russian service people. In 1638, after an unsuccessful uprising in Ukraine, caused by the intensification of the Polish policy of cruel national oppression, about a thousand Cossacks with their families and all household property came to Belgorod at once, led by Hetman Yatsk Ostrenin. Among the arrivals were many peasants and artisans. The newcomers turned to the tsar with a request to take them under their protection and "set them up for eternal life on the Chuguevsky settlement", and they undertook to "set up the city and the prison themselves." Chuguevo settlement was located in the steppe, far ahead of the state border, grain stocks could be delivered there only with great dangers, but nevertheless the Moscow government allowed the Ukrainian emigrants to build a city for themselves, since in this way they received an advanced stronghold in the fight against ta-

containers. In addition, the considerations of the newcomers themselves were taken into account that if they were sent in batches to different cities, then on the way they would lose all their cattle and bees, and from this they would “become impoverished” p.

Soon a fortress and courtyard estates were built with the help of a government grant, and thus a new city with a population of several thousand people immediately arose. The founding of Chuguev laid the foundation for the organized settlement of a large region, which later received the name of Sloboda Ukraine.

Events of the first half of XVII in. strengthened among Ukrainians the consciousness of their national affinity with the Russian people, strengthened them in the idea that only in fraternal unity with them lies the solution of the task of national liberation facing the Ukrainian people. But until 1651, the Ukrainian Cossacks still had hopes of achieving freedom through independent struggle. After severe injury, which the Ukrainian army suffered near Berestechko in 1651, these hopes collapsed, and Bogdan Khmelnitsky ... “ordered the people to freely leave the cities, throwing their nabitkika to the Poltava region and abroad to Great Russia, and they would settle there in cities. And from that hour they began to settle down: Sumi, Lebedin, Kharkov, Akhtirka and all the settlements even to the Don River by the Cossack people. Such a settlement, of course, had to take place in a certain order and be accompanied by a breakdown of the residential area into standard estate plots, and therefore, to a certain extent, be accompanied by a regular planning of cities.

...

Similar Documents

The importance of building cities in the development of Siberia. Principles of construction of new cities, their influence on internal planning. Tyumen as the first Russian city in Siberia. The history of the foundation and development of the city of Tobolsk. The specifics of the layout of Mangazeya and Pelma.

abstract, added 09/23/2014


Moscow as the basis for the unification of disparate Russia. Cities of commercial and craft significance, arrangement of retail space. Construction of fortified frontiers of the Russian centralized state in the 16th century. Development of border town planning.

abstract, added 12/21/2014


Medieval features of the construction of fortress cities. Forerunners of Kazan. Examples to follow. Kazan location. Construction of fortress walls. Passage gate of the fortress wall. Underground passages. Repositories. Outpost of Kazan. Water supply.

abstract, added 04/12/2008


Conditions for the emergence of cities in the Arab territories of the Middle East and the Mediterranean. Fortification as a necessary measure to preserve viability. Hellenistic, South Arabic, Babylonian and Eastern types of cities in the region; residences of the caliphs.

abstract, added 05/14/2014


Typology of the planning structure of cities: compact type, dissected, dispersed, linear. The main elements of the city. The essence of urban planning principles and requirements, methods of organizing the system of streets. Negative trends in urban development.

abstract, added 12/12/2010


The role of fortification in the history of the Russian state. The main forms of planning of settlements in Belarus: crowded (unsystematic), linear (ordinary) and street. The emergence of religious complexes with a developed defensive function (monasteries).

test, added 05/10/2012


The influence of geomorphological conditions on the emergence and growth of cities. Natural conditions that change the relief of urban areas. Development of landslides and ravines, flooding of the territory. Geomorphological processes leading to the disappearance of cities.

term paper, added 06/08/2012


Artificial lighting as an integral element of urban planning in the creation of new and reconstruction of old cities. Study of the features of the construction of street lighting, the installation of supports. The study of the norms of illumination of streets, roads and squares of the city.

test, added 03/17/2013


World historical experience and the development of open urban spaces. Varieties of urban spaces ancient egypt. Medieval squares: shopping, cathedral and town hall. The revival of Roman cities after the destruction and the city of Kievan Rus.

abstract, added 03/09/2012


Modern problems of urban reconstruction in modern socio-economic conditions. Ensuring the integrity of the architectural and spatial organization of districts. Preservation and renewal of the historical environment. Ways of reservation of territories.