Defensive structures of Ancient Rus' X-XIV centuries.

The construction of defensive structures was of great importance in ancient Russian architecture. From the second half of the 10th century. fortifications were built mainly around cities and feudal castles. In ancient Rus' there was a special profession of “gorodniks” or “gardeners” - builders of city fortifications. In cities, mayors were officials whose duties included building and restoring city fortifications.

In the era of Kievan Rus, the first fortifications were wooden and consisted of complex systems of log buildings filled with earth, on which fortress walls and palisades rose; the slopes of the shafts were often reinforced with structures made of mud bricks and logs.

Fortresses were located in the most convenient places from a strategic point of view - at the mouths of rivers, at the intersection of trade and military routes. As a rule, they were built in the greatest proximity to the border of the enemy, who could not advance forward without breaking the resistance of these fortresses: a fortress remaining in the rear, not taken or destroyed, posed a great danger; at any time the army could strike from it.

The fortresses of Ancient Rus' over the course of several centuries of existence underwent many changes, turning from small wooden “cities” (as they were called in the 11th-12th centuries) into majestic stone strongholds, impregnable to the enemy. Gradually, wooden fortresses were rebuilt into stone ones. This happened in several stages.

Active construction of fortresses at the end of the 10th century. began on the southern borders of ancient Rus'. The traveler Brunon (1008) writes that Prince Vladimir Svyatoslavich, defending himself from nomads, surrounded the borders of his state with a long and strong fence. It is possible that this mention refers to the Serpentine Ramparts, although they, as most researchers assume, were poured back in Scythian times, and under Vladimir Svyatoslavich they were only adapted to the defense of the borders of the Russian land.

The first fortresses of the 10th-11th centuries were built with maximum use of the features of the local terrain. Most often, a high coastal cape at the confluence of two rivers was chosen for construction. Such a cape was reliably protected by water barriers on both sides, and the third, so-called “floor” side, facing the field, could easily be fortified by means of a water-filled ditch connected to both rivers. From the earth removed during laying ditch, poured steep shaft, on which a wooden structure was erected defensive wall.

Great importance was attached to gates in the system of defensive fortifications as important links in the defense of cities. The gates were battle towers with a passage underneath them. Sometimes they were built from stone.

In the first fortresses of the 10th century, a rampart with a wall was built only on one floor side of the cape. In the 11th century, ramparts began to be built on its other sides. Thus, fortresses gradually appeared not with one-sided, but with all-round defense, which served as more reliable protection for the inhabitants of the city, located under the shelter of the walls. At the same time, the structural design of the shafts themselves changed. If in the 10th century the shaft usually did not have internal wooden structures, then in the 11th-12th centuries, before filling it, wooden frames began to be built along the entire perimeter of the future shaft - "Gorodni"(hence the name of the fortress - “city”), which were covered with earth and clay. The wooden wall built on the rampart was usually low. There is evidence in the chronicles that sometimes she was no taller than a man. Most often, the wall was a palisade made of vertically placed logs with pointed ends, but there were also walls made of wooden logs, the chain of which formed the line of the wall. Nevertheless, it was difficult to overcome even such a low wall. To do this, under a hail of arrows, stones and logs, it was necessary to cross a deep ditch filled with water, and climb the steep and slippery slopes of the rampart. Along the top of such a wall there were “fences” - military passages protruding slightly from its plane, closed from the enemy side and equipped only with small slots for archery.

A feature of ancient Russian fortresses was the almost complete absence of towers near their walls. The tower was usually built only over the passage, less often - on one of the corners of the fortress. But more often than not, the fortress walls did not have corners, but smoothly, without sharp turns, went around the space of a cape or island. Shooting from such a fortress was carried out only frontally - perpendicularly or at a slight angle to the plane of the wall. These were the first Russian fortresses.

Wooden fortresses were fully consistent with the then level of defense and siege technology, and the best evidence of their combat effectiveness is that even with the development of siege technology, the advent of firearms and stone fortresses, wooden fortresses, with some design changes, continued to be built and served as reliable protection.

Wooden fortresses of the X-XI centuries. corresponded to the siege tactics common during this period. At that time, the tactics most often used to capture a fortress were a surprise attack. Somewhat later, in the 12th century, another method of siege became widespread - “laying down”, that is, a long siege designed to starve out the fortress. The fortress was surrounded on all possible sides; in this case, its sides also had to withstand the test.

In all likelihood, the replacement of cape fortresses, triangular in outline, with oval or round fortresses in the XII-XIII centuries was caused by a change in siege tactics, a transition from surprise attacks to a systematic siege. We can only say with certainty that in the 11th-12th centuries the fortress walls themselves were not directly exposed to enemy siege equipment, because this technique was still very poorly developed.

It appeared and began to be used only in the 13th century, which in turn influenced both the organization of defense and the methods of siege. Direct assault on the fortress walls themselves began to be used more and more often. Stone cannonballs from stone-throwing weapons rained down on them. Such weapons in Rus' were called “vices”. The nuclei of vices primarily affected those standing in the fences and the fences themselves. The upper parts of the walls collapsed, and this forced the defenders of the fortress to weaken or completely stop firing from the walls. Later, during the assault, the attackers began to use the so-called “grads” - tall wooden frames on wheels, which were transported to the walls of the fortress, from which the attackers climbed to the wall. They also began to use ladders. All this led to changes in the fortress walls, and primarily the approach floor wall.

The first walls that began to be built from stone were precisely the approach walls. However, sometimes the entire fortress was built from stone if it was small, as, for example, in Koporye (1280) and Izborsk (1330). But much more often, only the approach wall was built in stone. The most widespread in ancient Rus' were wood-stone fortresses, in which the approach wall was stone and the remaining walls were wooden. Such were, for example, the fortresses in Novgorod and Pskov. Fortresses with one-sided defense appeared already in the second half of the 14th century. As in the first wooden fortresses, at first there were no towers in the stone fortresses; they began to be built later and initially also only on the approach side (

Ancient Russian fortresses

INTRODUCTION

During the Middle Ages, the construction of defensive structures was a prominent branch of architecture. It couldn’t be any other way! After all, the existence of a significant part of the population depended on it. Clashes between the troops of individual feudal lords were an everyday, common occurrence at that time. Danger threatened the population of villages and cities not only during the invasion of foreign troops, but also when there was no “official” war, not only in the border regions, but also in the central parts of the country. Military operations then rarely took place on a large scale; As a rule, very small armies took part in them, but these military actions took place almost continuously, and the lives of civilians were constantly under threat.

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

A similar picture, although in completely different forms, is characteristic not only of the European, but also of the Eastern Middle Ages. This was the case in Rus'. The word city in the Old Russian language meant a fortified settlement, in contrast to a village or village - an unfortified village. Therefore, any fortified place was called a city, both a city in the socio-economic meaning of the word, and a fortress itself or a feudal castle, a fortified boyar or princely estate. Everything that was surrounded by a fortress wall was considered a city. Moreover, until the 17th century. this word was often used to describe the defensive walls themselves.

In ancient Russian written sources, especially in chronicles, there are a huge number of references to the siege and defense of fortified points and the construction of fortifications - cities.

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

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

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

ANCIENT PERIOD

The question of when the Slavs appeared on the territory where the Old Russian state later formed has not yet been finally resolved. Some researchers believe that the Slavs are the original population of this territory, others believe that non-Slavic tribes lived here, and the Slavs moved here much later, only in the middle of the 1st millennium AD. e. In any case, Slavic settlements of the 6th - 7th centuries. on the territory of modern Ukraine are already well known to us. They are located in the southern part of the forest-steppe, almost on the border of the steppes.

During the VIII - X centuries. The Slavs gradually settled the entire territory where the Old Russian state was formed - from the border with the steppe in the south to the Gulf of Finland and Lake Ladoga in the north. In this vast area we know a large number of Slavic settlements - the remains of fortified settlements.

They are very similar to each other in their general defense system and apparently respond to the same siege tactics in both the south and north. Here and there the Slavs dealt with different enemies: in the south, in the forest-steppe zone, these were steppe nomads, in the north, in the forest zone, various Finnish and Lithuanian tribes. Of course, these opponents were armed differently and mastered different military techniques. But all of them did not have an organized army and did not know how to besiege fortifications.

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

Where there were few swamps, but there were moraine hillocks in abundance, fortified settlements were built on outlier hills. This technique was widespread in the northwestern regions of Rus'. However, this type of defense system is also associated with certain geographical conditions; Separate hills with steep slopes on all sides are also not found everywhere. Therefore, the cape type of fortified settlement became the most common. For their construction, a cape was chosen, bounded by ravines or at the confluence of two rivers. The settlement turned out to be well protected by water or steep slopes on the sides, but had no natural protection on the floor side. This is where it was necessary to build artificial earthen obstacles - to tear off a ditch. This increased the labor costs for the construction of fortifications, but also provided enormous advantages: in almost any geographical conditions it was very easy to find a convenient place and select in advance the desired size of the territory to be fortified. In addition, the earth obtained by tearing off the ditch was usually poured along the edge of the site, thus creating an artificial earthen rampart, which made it even more difficult for the enemy to gain access to the settlement.

All this made the cape type of defense the most common among the Slavs, starting from the ancient period, i.e. from the 8th - 9th centuries. The vast majority of settlements of the so-called Romny-Borshev culture, which spanned the 8th - 10th centuries, belong to this type. the vast territory of the Dnieper forest-steppe left bank. One of these settlements, Novotroitskoye, was completely excavated and studied in detail (Fig. 1).

As in all fortified settlements of the cape type, one of the sides of the village had no natural protection and was covered by a wide ditch. No traces of a wooden defensive wall have been found along the edges of the site, although it is possible that some kind of wooden fencing originally existed.

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

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

Although the cape and island types of fortifications differed significantly from each other, they had much in common. This is, first of all, the very principle of subordinating the defense system to the natural protective properties of the terrain. In East Slavic settlements of the 8th - 10th centuries. this principle was the only one.

Ground-based wooden defensive structures played a subordinate role and were not given much attention. Usually a wooden palisade was erected, traces of which were found in a number of settlements in the Smolensk region. Another type of wooden fence was also used - horizontally placed logs were clamped between pillars driven into the ground in pairs.

Old Russian fortifications VIII - X centuries. were still very primitive and could successfully perform their defensive functions only because the opponents that the Eastern Slavs had to face at that time did not know how to besiege fortified settlements.

But even then, many of these settlements could not withstand the onslaught and perished, captured and burned by enemies. This is how many fortifications of the Dnieper left bank, destroyed at the end of the 9th century, perished. steppe nomads - the Pechenegs. There was no economic opportunity to build more powerful fortifications that could reliably protect against nomadic raids.

In the X and especially in the XI century. The military situation has deteriorated significantly. The pressure of the Pechenegs was felt more and more; the southwestern regions of Rus' were in danger from the established Polish state; The attacks of the Baltic, Letto-Lithuanian tribes also became more dangerous. However, at this time new opportunities appeared for the construction of fortifications.

The sharp social changes that occurred in Rus' led to the emergence of new types of settlements - feudal castles, princely fortresses and cities in the proper sense of the word, i.e. settlements in which the dominant role was played not by agriculture, but by crafts and trade.

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

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

Tactics of capturing fortifications in the 11th century. was as follows: first of all, they tried to attack the city by surprise, to capture it with a sudden raid. Back then it was called expulsion or departure. If such a capture failed, they began a systematic siege: the army surrounded the fortified settlement and set up a camp here. Such a siege was usually called a lien. Its task was to interrupt the connection between the besieged settlement and the outside world and prevent the arrival of reinforcements, as well as the delivery of water and food. After some time, the inhabitants of the settlement had to surrender due to hunger and thirst. The chronicle paints a typical picture of lying, describing the siege of Kyiv by the Pechenegs in 968: “And having attacked the city with great strength, the multitude around the city was numberless, and it was impossible for them to fly out of the city or send a message; The people are weakened by hunger and water.”

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

First of all, they tried to position the fortified settlement so that the area around was clearly visible, and the enemy could not suddenly approach the city walls and especially the gates. To do this, the settlement was built either on a high place, from where there was a wide view, or, conversely, in a low-lying, swampy and flat area, where for a long distance there were no forests, ravines or other shelters for enemies.

Shooting during this period was used exclusively frontal, that is, directed straight ahead from the fortress walls, and not along them (Table I).

To ensure good shelling and prevent the enemy from getting close to the walls, the walls were usually placed on a high rampart or on the edge of a steep natural slope. In the fortifications of the 11th century. the natural protective properties of the terrain were still taken into account, but they faded into the background; artificial defensive structures came to the fore - earthen ramparts and ditches, wooden walls. True, in the fortifications of the 8th - 9th centuries. sometimes there were ramparts, but there they played a much smaller role than ditches. In essence, the ramparts were then only a consequence of the creation of ditches, and they were filled only from the earth that was thrown out of the ditch. In the fortifications of the 11th century. the shafts already had great independent significance.

2. Town of Tumas in the 11th - 12th centuries. Reconstruction of the author based on materials from the ancient settlement of Old Bezradichi

Throughout the territory of ancient Rus' in the 11th century. The most common type of fortifications remained settlements subordinate to the terrain, i.e. island and cape fortifications.

However, not all monuments of fortress construction of the 11th century. were completely subordinated to the configuration of the relief. Already at the end of the X - beginning of the XI century. In the Western Russian lands, fortifications with a geometrically correct design appeared - round in plan.

Sometimes they were located on natural hills and then were close to island-type fortifications. Such round fortresses can also be found on the plain, where ramparts and ditches were of particular importance (see Table II).

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

There is no doubt that in different regions of ancient Rus' the layout of fortifications had its own characteristics. However, in general, all types of Russian fortifications of the 11th century. are close to each other, since they were all adapted to the same tactical methods of defense, to conducting exclusively frontal fire from the entire perimeter of the fortress walls.

In the 12th century. no significant changes occurred in the organization of the defense of the fortifications. Russian fortresses of this time are distinguished in a number of cases by a more well-thought-out plan design and greater geometric correctness, but essentially they belong to the same types that already existed in the 11th century. Characteristically widespread in the 12th century. round fortresses.

In the Western Russian lands, fortifications with a round plan have been known since the 10th century; in the Kyiv land and in the Middle Dnieper region, such fortresses began to be built only in the second half of the 11th century; in North-Eastern Rus' the first round fortifications date back to the 12th century. Good examples of round fortifications in the Suzdal land are the cities of Mstislavl (Fig. 4) and Mikulin, Dmitrov and Yuryev-Polskaya. In the 12th century. round fortresses are widely used throughout ancient Russian territory. Semicircular fortresses were built using the same principle, one side adjacent to a natural defensive line - a river bank or a steep slope. These are, for example, Przemysl-Moskovsky, Kideksha, Gorodets on the Volga.

The widespread use of round fortifications in the 12th century is explained by the fact that a fortress of this type most accurately met the tactical requirements of its time. Indeed, the location of the fortifications on flat and level terrain made it possible to monitor the entire area and thereby made it difficult to unexpectedly capture the fortress. In addition, this made it possible to install wells inside the fortification, which was extremely important in the conditions of the dominance of passive long-term siege tactics. Thus, abandoning the protective properties of hilly terrain and steep slopes, the builders of fortifications in the 12th century. used other properties of the area that provided no less, and perhaps even greater benefits. And, finally, the most important advantage of round fortresses was the convenience of conducting frontal fire from city walls in all directions, without fear that the configuration of the relief could create “dead” areas that could not be shot anywhere.

In the southern regions of Rus' in the 12th century. Multi-valley fortifications are also becoming widespread, that is, fortresses surrounded not by one defensive fence, but by several parallel ones, each of which was erected on an independent rampart.

Such fortifications were known earlier, in the 10th - 11th centuries, but in the 12th century. this technique is used more widely. In some settlements located on the border of the Kyiv and Volyn principalities, in the so-called Bolokhov land, the number of parallel lines of ramparts sometimes even reaches four: such is the settlement of the ancient city of Gubin (Fig. 5).

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

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

There are several large ancient Russian cities with a different defense scheme. Thus, in Vladimir-Volynsky, Detinets belongs to the “Volyn” type of fortifications, that is, it has the shape of a rectangle, as if combined with a circle, and the roundabout city is a huge semicircular fortification. In Novgorod the Great, the detinets has a semicircular shape, and the round town has an irregularly rounded shape, and the round town is located on both banks of the Volkhov, and thus the river flows through the fortress.

There is no doubt that all types of fortification planning of the 11th - 12th centuries, both completely subordinate to the terrain and those having an artificial geometric shape, meet the same principles of defense organization.

All of them are designed for protection along the entire perimeter by frontal fire from the city walls.

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

The connection between round fortifications and settlements of a certain social nature—feudal castles—is explained very simply. In the XI - XII centuries. round fortifications most closely corresponded to the tactical principles of defense. But they could only be built entirely anew in a new location, choosing the most convenient site. In addition, the fortification could only obtain the correct geometric shape when it was built by a military specialist, since there was no folk tradition of constructing round fortifications either in Southern or North-Eastern Rus'. In addition, the construction of round fortresses on the plain required more labor than fortifications of the island or cape type, where the benefits of the relief were widely used. Naturally, under such conditions, the round type could find application primarily in the construction of feudal castles or princely fortresses.

Some fortifications in the northwestern regions of ancient Rus' had a very unique social character. Here there are small, often primitive fortifications, completely subordinated to the protective properties of the relief. They had no permanent population; they served as fortresses of refuge. The villages of the northwestern regions of Rus' usually consisted of only a few courtyards. Of course, each such village could not build its own fortress, and to build even the most primitive fortification, several villages had to unite. In peacetime, such fortress-shelters were maintained in combat-ready condition by the residents of the same neighboring villages, and during enemy invasions, the surrounding population came running here to wait out the dangerous time.

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

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

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

The shaft sizes were different. In medium-sized fortifications, the ramparts rarely rose to a height of more than 4 m, but in strong fortresses the height of the ramparts was much greater. The ramparts of large ancient Russian cities were especially high. Thus, the ramparts of Vladimir were about 8 m high, Ryazan – up to 10 m, and the ramparts of the “city of Yaroslav” in Kyiv, the highest of all known ramparts of ancient Rus', were 16 m.

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

In Polish fortresses, the shaft structures mostly consist of several rows of logs that are not connected to each other, with the logs of one layer usually lying perpendicular to the logs of the next layer. Among the Czechs, wooden structures have the form of a lattice frame, sometimes reinforced with masonry. In ancient Russian fortresses, the shaft structures almost always consist of oak log cabins filled with earth.
True, in Poland sometimes there are log-shaft structures, and in Rus', on the contrary, there are structures consisting of several layers of logs. For example, a structure made of several layers of logs not connected to each other was discovered in the ramparts of Novgorod Detinets and ancient Minsk in the 11th century. Strengthening the lower part of the shaft with logs with wooden hooks at the ends, exactly the same as in Poland, was discovered in the shaft of the Moscow Kremlin of the 12th century. And yet, despite a number of coincidences, the difference between the vault structures of ancient Russian fortresses and the fortifications of other Slavic countries is felt quite clearly. Moreover, in Rus', log-shaft structures have several options, successively replacing one another.

The earliest internal wooden structures were discovered in several fortresses of the late 10th century. built under Prince Vladimir Svyatoslavich - in Belgorod, Pereyaslavl and a small fortress on the river. Stugne (fortified settlement Zarechye). Here, at the base of the earthen rampart, there is a line of oak logs placed along the rampart close to one another. They were chopped “with the remainder” (otherwise “in the oblo”) and therefore the ends of the logs protrude outward from the corners of the log houses by about 1/2 m. The log houses stood so that their front wall was located exactly under the crest of the shaft, and the log houses themselves, therefore, were located in its rear part. In front of the log houses, in the front part of the shaft, there is a lattice frame made of beams, nailed together with iron spikes, filled with masonry made of mud bricks on clay. This entire structure is covered with earth on top, forming the slopes of the shaft.

Such a complex intra-shaft structure was very labor-intensive and, apparently, did not justify itself. Already in the first half of the 11th century. it has been greatly simplified. They began to make the front side of the shafts purely earthen, without adobe masonry. All that remained was a line of oak logs, placed close to one another and tightly packed with earth. Such structures are known in many Russian fortresses of the 11th - 12th centuries: in Volyn - in Chertorysk, in the Kyiv land - on the site of Old Bezradichi, in North-Eastern Rus' - on a site near the Sungirevsky ravine near Vladimir, in Novgorod - in the rampart of the roundabout city and in the northern part of the Novgorod Detinets rampart, and in some other fortifications.

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

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

6. Oak log houses in the ramparts of the “city of Yaroslav” in Kyiv. 30s of the 11th century. (excavations 1952)

During the construction of the shaft, the log houses were gradually densely packed with loess as they were built. As in all other cases, the front wall of the log houses was located under the crest of the shaft, and since the shaft was enormous, its front part, devoid of an internal frame, apparently gave rise to doubts: they were afraid that it might slide. Therefore, at the base of the front part of the shaft, an additional structure was built from a number of low log buildings.

In the 12th century. Along with the design of individual log houses, a technique became widespread in which the log houses were connected to each other into a single system by cutting their longitudinal logs “overlapping.” This is, for example, the design of the Detinets shaft in Vyshgorod.

This technique turned out to be especially convenient in the construction of fortresses, in which rooms were located along the rampart, structurally connected to the rampart itself. Here the log structure consisted of several rows of cells, with only one outer row filled with earth and forming the structural basis of the defensive rampart. The remaining cells, facing the inner courtyard of the fortress, remained unfilled and were used as utility and sometimes as living quarters. This constructive technique appeared in the first half of the 11th century, but it became widely used only in the 12th century. Moats in Russian fortresses of the 11th - 12th centuries. usually had a symmetrical profile

. The slope of their walls was approximately 30 - 45° to the horizon; The walls of the ditches were made straight, and the bottom was mostly slightly rounded. The depth of the ditches was usually approximately equal to the height of the ramparts, although in many cases natural ravines were used to construct ditches, and then the ditches, of course, were larger than the ramparts and were very large. In cases where fortified settlements were erected in low-lying or swampy areas, they tried to tear out ditches so that they were filled with water (Fig. 7).

7. Rampart and ditch of the Mstislavl settlement. XII century

Defensive ramparts, as a rule, were not built at the very edge of the ditch. To prevent the shaft from collapsing into the ditch, a horizontal platform-berm about 1 m wide was almost always left at the base of the shaft.

No matter how great the importance of earthen defensive structures and, first of all, ramparts in ancient Russian fortresses, they still represented only a foundation on which wooden walls necessarily stood. Brick or stone walls in the 11th - 12th centuries. known in isolated cases. Thus, the walls of the metropolitan estate around the St. Sophia Cathedral in Kyiv and the walls of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery were brick, and the walls of the metropolitan “city” in Pereyaslavl were brick. A stone wall surrounded Detinets, or rather, the princely-episcopal center in Vladimir. All these “city” walls are essentially monuments of cultic rather than military architecture; these are the walls of metropolitan or monastic estates, where military and defensive functions gave way to artistic and ideological functions. Closer to the fortifications themselves stood the stone walls of the castles in Bogolyubovo (Suzdal land) and in Kholm (Western Volyn). However, here too, artistic goals and the desire to create a solemn and monumental impression of the princely residence played a greater role than purely military requirements.

Apparently, the only region of Rus' where the tradition of building stone defensive walls began to take shape already at that time was the Novgorod land. In the formation of this tradition, a significant role was probably played by the fact that in this area there were outcrops of natural limestone slabs, which are very easily mined and provide excellent material for construction.

The walls of all Russian fortifications of the 11th - 12th centuries. were, as said, wooden. They stood on the top of the rampart and were log buildings, fastened at certain distances by short sections of transverse walls connected to longitudinal ones “in a circle.”

Such log walls, apparently, first began to be used in Russian military architecture in the second half of the 10th century. They were already much stronger than the primitive fences of the 8th - 9th centuries. (Fig. 8, top).

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

The walls reached a height of approximately 3 - 5 m. In the upper part they were equipped with a military passage in the form of a balcony or gallery running along the wall from its inside and covered from the outside with a log parapet. In ancient Rus', such protective devices were called visors. Here during the fighting there were defenders who fired at the enemy through loopholes in the parapet. It is possible that already in the 12th century. Such combat platforms were sometimes made somewhat protruding in front of the plane of the wall, which made it possible to shoot from the visor not only forward, but also downward - to the foot of the walls, or pour boiling water on the besiegers. The top of the visor was covered with a roof.

The most important part of the fortress’s defense was the gate. In small fortifications, the gates may have been made like ordinary utility gates. However, in the vast majority of fortresses, the gate was built in the form of a tower with a passage in its lower part. The gate passage was usually located at the level of the platform, that is, at the level of the base of the shafts.

A wooden tower rose above the passage, with ramparts and walls adjacent to it on the sides. Only in such large cities as Kyiv, Vladimir, Novgorod, brick or stone gates were built next to wooden walls. The remains of the main gates of Kyiv and Vladimir, which bore the name Golden (Fig. 9), have survived to this day. In addition to purely military functions, they served as a ceremonial arch expressing the wealth and grandeur of the city; above the gate there were gate churches.

In cases where there was a ditch in front of the gate, a wooden bridge, usually a rather narrow one, was built across it. In moments of danger, the city’s defenders sometimes destroyed the bridges themselves to make it difficult for the enemy to approach the gates. Special drawbridges in Rus' in the 11th - 12th centuries. almost never used. In addition to the main gate, additional hidden exits were sometimes made in fortresses, mostly in the form of wood-lined passages through an earthen rampart. From the outside they were closed with a thin wall and camouflaged, and were used to organize unexpected attacks during the siege.

It should be noted that in Russian fortresses of the 11th - 12th centuries, as a rule, there were no towers. In every city there was, of course, a gate tower, but it was considered precisely as a gate, and that is how it is always called in ancient Russian written sources.

Separate, non-gate towers were built very rarely, exclusively as watchtowers, located at the highest places and intended for viewing the surrounding area, in order to protect the fortress from unexpected enemy approaches and sudden capture.

The most outstanding monument of military architecture of the era of the early feudal state, undoubtedly, were the fortifications of Kyiv. In the IX - X centuries. Kyiv was a very small town located on the cape of a high mountain above the Dnieper steeps. On the floor side it was protected by a rampart and a ditch. At the end of the 10th century. The fortifications of this original settlement were razed due to the need to expand the city's territory. The new defensive line, the so-called city of Vladimir, consisted of a rampart and a ditch surrounding an area of ​​approximately 11 hectares. A wooden fortress wall ran along the rampart, and the main gate was brick.

The line of ramparts of the “city of Yaroslav” stretched for about 3 1/2 km, and where the ramparts ran along the edge of the hill, there were no ditches in front of them, and where there were no natural slopes, a deep ditch was dug everywhere in front of the rampart.

The shafts, as we have already noted, had a very high height - 12 - 16 m - and an internal frame made of huge oak logs. A timber defensive wall ran along the top of the ramparts. Three city gates led through the ramparts and, in addition, Borichev vzvoz connected the “upper city” with Podol. The main gate of Kyiv, the Golden Gate, was a brick tower with a passage 7 m wide and 12 m high. The vaulted passage was closed by gates bound in gilded copper. There was a church above the gate.

The gigantic fortifications of Kyiv were not only a powerful fortress, but also a highly artistic monument of architecture: it was not without reason that in the 11th century. Metropolitan Hilarion said that Prince Yaroslav the Wise “put the glorious city... Kyiv under the majesty of a crown.”

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

The defense of the southern Russian lands was built differently, by establishing fortified settlements - cities - in the areas bordering the steppe. Nomads rarely decided to launch raids deep into Russian territory if they had uncaptured Russian cities in their rear. After all, the garrisons of these cities could attack them from behind or cut off their escape route back to the steppe. Therefore, the more fortified settlements there were in any area, the more difficult it was for the nomads to devastate that area. The same applies to areas bordering Poland or lands inhabited by Lithuanian tribes. The more cities there were, the “stronger” the land was, the more secure the Russian population could live here. And it is quite natural that in the areas most dangerous due to enemy invasions, they tried to build a larger number of cities, especially on possible routes of enemy advance, i.e. on main roads, near river crossings, etc.

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

In the second half of the 11th century. The situation in Southern Rus' noticeably changed for the worse. New enemies appeared in the steppes - the Polovtsians. In military-tactical terms, they differed little from the Pechenegs, Torks and other steppe nomads with whom Rus' had encountered before. They were the same easily mobile horsemen, attacking suddenly and swiftly. The purpose of the Polovtsian raids, as well as the Pechenegs, was to capture prisoners and property, and steal livestock; They did not know how to besiege or storm fortifications. And yet the Polovtsians posed a terrible threat primarily because of their numbers. Their pressure on the southern Russian lands was increasing, and by the 90s of the 11th century. the situation became truly catastrophic. A significant part of the southern Russian territory was devastated; residents abandoned the cities and went north to safer forest areas. Among those abandoned at the end of the 11th century. Fortified settlements turned out to be quite significant cities, such as the settlements of Listvin in Volyn, Stupnitsa in the Galician land, etc. The southern borders of the Russian land noticeably moved to the north.

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

And yet throughout the entire XII century. The Polovtsians still remained a terrible threat to the entire southern Russian territory. It was possible to live in these areas only if there were a significant number of well-fortified settlements, where the population could flee in times of danger, and the garrison of which could strike the steppe inhabitants at any moment. Therefore, in the southern Russian principalities in the 12th century. Intensive construction of fortresses is being carried out, which the princes populate with special garrisons. A unique social group of warrior-farmers appears, engaged in agriculture in peacetime, but always having war horses and good weapons at the ready. They were in constant combat readiness. Fortresses with such garrisons were built according to a pre-planned plan, and along the entire defensive rampart they had a number of timber cages, structurally connected to the rampart and used as utility and partly as living quarters.
These are the cities of Izyaslavl, Kolodyazhin, Raikovetskoye fortification, etc.

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

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

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

The construction of new city walls, as well as the reconstruction and maintenance of existing fortifications in a combat-ready state, required enormous labor costs and fell heavily on the shoulders of the feudally dependent population.

Even when the princes, in the form of a special privilege for patrimonial owners, freed dependent peasants from duties in favor of the prince, they usually did not free them from the most difficult duty - “city affairs”. In the same way, the townspeople were not free from this duty. How much labor it took to build defensive structures can be judged by rough estimates of the required labor costs. So, for example, to build the largest fortification of Kievan Rus - the fortifications of the “city of Yaroslav” in Kyiv - about a thousand people had to work continuously for about five years. The construction of the small fortress of Mstislavl in the Suzdal land was supposed to take approximately 180 workers during one construction season.

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

Rappoport P.A. Ancient Russian fortresses. M., 1965.

Defensive structures of Ancient Rus'

The Russian people had to pay attention to the defense of the country and carry out extensive construction of defensive structures for many centuries. In the historical life of ancient Rus', such structures played a huge role. The architecture of defensive structures was particularly influenced by the development of military tactics, the improvement of siege means, and the constant desire for something new in the entire architectural and construction art.

Below, the main stages in the development of defense architecture in Rus' are revealed and the architecture of Russian fortresses in different periods of their existence is characterized.

The location of Slavic fortified settlements of the 8th-10th centuries was determined by the proximity of communication routes and the conditions of the best natural protection. The simplest of them were located either on islands surrounded by water or wetlands, or on the tops of individual hills.

The second type of Slavic fortifications is cape settlements. These settlements were located on capes, near waterways and on pointed hills, strongly protruding into floodplains and swampy valleys. The locations of such settlements were covered by natural barriers only on three sides. On the fourth side, the settlements were covered with artificial defensive structures. The defensive structures of the cape settlements consisted of a rampart, the material for the construction of which was taken when digging ditches. To build a “city” in Rus' meant to build defensive structures.

In the 10th and especially in the 11th centuries, the tactics of military attacks changed. The enemy was already trying to interrupt the besieged's connection with the outside world. Such sieges were not accompanied by a direct assault on fortifications. This affected the nature of the defense of fortified points. They were adapted to be correct, mostly rounded in terms of fortresses, they were also quite large cities, like Mstislavl, Mikulin and ordinary feudal castles. They were located either on flat ground or on small natural hills and also had defensive structures along the entire perimeter.

At the same time, there were also multi-row fortresses, covered on the open side by a whole system of defensive structures located in 2 or 3 parallel lines. Some cities of the Volkhov land, among which Gubin especially stood out, even had four lines of fortifications.

The nature of defensive structures changed in the 11th-12th centuries. They have become more powerful. The Old Russian state could already carry out large construction work and provide more effective resistance to the enemy.

As before, the basis of the fortresses were ramparts. Their height was not the same everywhere. In Vladimir they had a height of about 8 m, in Ryazan - about 10 m, and in Kyiv - 16 m. The walls of Russian fortresses of the 11th-12th centuries were wooden. Standing on shafts, they very often were a continuation of their frames. The fortified points did not have towers. They were surrounded only by walls, which played a much larger role in their defense than before.

An important part of the defense of fortresses was the gate. In most cases they were log buildings. They differed from the log walls by the presence of a passage in the lower part, launched into the shaft, and by a greater height, and therefore had the appearance of a tower. Stone gates were only in large cities. They were also built in the plane of the base of the shaft, adjacent to them on both sides, and also received a through passage. Remains of similar gates from the 12th century have been preserved in Kyiv and Vladimir. This structure with smooth walls has no analogues in the architecture of the European Middle Ages. Its slender, highly elongated through vaulted passage with a narrow arched lintel in the center was covered with massive doors.

Important qualitative changes in Russian defense architecture occurred in the 13th-15th centuries.

At this time, fortresses with one multi-tiered stone tower appeared. In the second half of the 13th - first half of the 14th century, such fortresses began to be built in the northern and western regions of the Volyn principality, more distant from Tatar supervision. They existed, for example, in Czartorysk, Belavin and Berestye. A round tower made of brick was preserved in Kamenets-Litovsky, and a rectangular tower, built of local stone, was preserved in Stolpie. In the Kholm fortress there was also a wooden tower on a high stone foundation. In the first half of the 14th century, single-tower fortresses were also built in the Novgorod lands. These were the first “cities” of Izborsk and Korela.

The towers of fortresses of the second half of the 13th - first half of the 14th centuries stood, as a rule, under the cover of ramparts and fortress walls. They mainly served observational purposes.

Fortresses with a large number of towers began to be built in Russian lands. In the second half of the 14th century, such fortresses were built in both the northeastern and northwestern regions of Rus'. It was at that time that the already existing one-tower fortress in Izborsk received additional towers, and it was then that a new fortress was built with a large number of towers in the old town of Porkhov. After this, multi-tower fortresses became characteristic of Russian defensive architecture.

At the same time, the nature of the purpose of the towers is changing. Now they have become an integral part of the walls, nodes of their effective resistance. Blocking the way inside the fortress, the towers delayed the enemy on the approaches to the walls, allowing the defenders to strike him.

But in the second half of the 14th century, not all the walls of the fortresses were equipped with towers, but only the approach ones. The absence of towers on some sides of defensive structures and their accumulation on others was a characteristic feature of the layout of Russian fortresses.

Architects began to strive to straighten the approach walls and give them a rectilinear outline. This is clearly seen in the example of the fortresses in Porkhov and Koporye - magnificent monuments of defensive architecture.

These transformations were of significant importance for improving the combat system of fortified points. Active defense was carried out from the main - frontal sides, equipped with straight walls and often placed towers, in front of which there were additional artificial obstacles that strengthened them. The enemy had almost no opportunity to approach such fortresses and move their equipment towards them.

The fortifications of Rus' in the second half of the 14th - mid-15th centuries, similar in defense systems, had their own local characteristics and, first of all, differed in the nature of the building material. In the northeast, in the Moscow and Tver principalities, they were predominantly wooden, and only the Moscow Kremlin of the third quarter of the 14th century was made of stone, and in the northwest, in the Novgorod and Pskov lands, along with a large number of wooden fortresses, there were many stone defensive structures .

As before, the ramparts of the fortresses of the second half often did not have frames holding them together. Where such a frame was installed, it was an ordinary log wall. At this time, a horizontal platform - a berm - was often left in front of the high ramparts, which prevented the outer slopes of the ramparts from sliding into the ditches.

The walls of the wooden fortresses of the second half were single-row, with short cuts. However, at the beginning of the 15th century, the walls were very often made thicker from two rows of logs. A little later, they began to cover them with more earth and stones, and at the lower parts they made earthen deposits in which cannonballs were stuck. In order to protect against fire, wooden walls were sometimes coated with clay. In their upper part there was a battle passage. The approach walls were the thickest. They took the brunt of the enemy's attacks. The huge role of approach walls in the defense of fortresses was clearly reflected in Pskov, where the southern wall of the Kremlin received the special name “Perseus”, because for a number of centuries it was the chest of the Pskov Krom.

In the second quarter of the 15th century, when artillery became an effective means of attack, the thickness of the walls was increased. In Pskov, Izborsk and Porkhov this was done by installing additional butts. On the outer planes of the butts, architects sometimes laid out symbolic crosses and short ribbons of triangular patterns, which somewhat softened the severity of their architectural appearance. In the upper part of the stone walls, as in wooden fortresses, there was a covered military passage, which had a direct connection with the towers and was covered with battlements on the outside.

Along with the thickening of the walls and powerful stone buttresses, the towers were also strengthened in the second quarter of the 15th century. They had a round, semicircular and rectangular shape. They are typical for Izborsk, Koporye and the fortifications of Pskov.

Inside, the stone towers were divided into tiers by wooden bridges, the connection between which was carried out by leaning wooden stairs.

In the second half of the 14th - mid-15th centuries, changes also occurred in the design of entrances. At this time, zakhabs were also built - narrow passages sandwiched between two parallel walls. Particularly characteristic of Novgorod and Pskov architecture, such zahabs are known in Pskov, Izborsk, Porkhov and Ostrov. These were peculiar corridors of death, once in which the enemy found himself under fire. In the Porkhov fortress, the zakhab was combined with a gate tower. From the beginning of the 15th century, the gates of such towers began to be covered with gers - special bars made either forged or wooden, but covered with iron. In the same Porkhov fortress, a chamber was preserved where there was a lifting device for such a lattice. The ends of the iron forged gersa still stick out from the thickness of the entrance arch of the Koporye fortress, flanked on the sides by powerful towers.

The bridges in front of the fortresses also underwent certain changes in the first half of the 15th century. They were no longer built only permanently on piles, gorodnys and cut-outs, but also by lifting ones, on ropes. Sometimes such bridges turned into traps.

The architectural appearance of the fortresses was different. From the front, from the side of the field, this appearance was already characterized by the frequent rhythm of vertical arrays of towers, between which small sections of walls seemed to be sandwiched, as well as strips of artificial barriers in front of them. This is clearly seen in the example of the same fortresses in Izborsk, Porkhov and Koporye. Stone fortresses were not coated with lime or whitewashed.

In the second half of the 15th century, the power and range of artillery increased. Natural barriers cease to be significant obstacles. As a result, fortresses with towers on the approaching side are being replaced by fortresses such as in Ladoga, in which towers are placed more or less evenly around the entire perimeter of the walls, without taking into account the natural barriers located around them. There is a sharp change in the nature of the all-round defense of the fortresses. It ceases to be divided into active and passive. Regardless of the protective properties of the terrain, this defense is built with the calculation of effective active resistance in any direction, no matter where the enemy appears.

The layout of fortified points is being transformed again. Like the Orekhov fortress or the fortifications of the Moscow Kremlin at the end of the 15th century, they acquire a more or less clear geometric shape, which has a clearly defined pattern in the location of the towers. Along the way, fortified points such as the Yam fortress are also built, receiving an almost rectangular plan with massive towers at the corners.

All this leaves an imprint on the appearance of the fortresses. While maintaining the same severity even when using modest elements of decorative decoration, fortresses lose the facade inherent in defensive structures with a one-sided defense system. Their architectural appearance is characterized by a combination of walls and towers on all sides.

The logical conclusion of the process of regrouping the towers and straightening the walls was the creation of a fortress with an absolutely correct geometric plan. At the end of the 15th century, the small fortress of Ivangorod, built in a quadrangle on the border with Livonia, received such a plan.

Later, rectangular fortresses became widespread in Rus'. Kremlins were built in Tula and Zaraysk, fortresses Bui, Vasilsursk and Balakhna, and in the second half of the century - fortresses Turovlya and Susha in the Polotsk region. The original version of this scheme were the fortresses of Kozjan, Krasna, Sitna and Sokol. In them, the quadrangular structure was transformed into a triangle, trapezoid and other geometric shapes. At that time, the defensive structures of monasteries, for example Solovetsky, received a similar plan structure. A fortress with such a plan was, as it were, ideally defensively strong and architecturally slender.

In the 16th century, the defensive structures of Nizhny Novgorod, Kolomna, Sviyazhsk, Kazan, Serpukhov and many other settlements of the country received a free composition of the plan. The fortifications of the Trinity-Sergius, Pskov-Pechersky and many other monasteries then acquired the same incorrect plan. Fortresses of the 16th century, which have a picturesque composition of the plan, do not have long and curved walls on some sides and a large number of towers on others. They are characterized by the presence of straight, often almost equal walls and a certain pattern in the location of the towers along the perimeter. A distinctive feature of the fortresses, which had high defensive and architectural qualities, was only a polygonal - polygonal - composition of the plan. However, their defense system was the same as that of geometrically regular fortresses.

In the second half of the 15th century, the nature of defensive construction became different.

After the formation of a single state in Rus', stone fortresses began to be built throughout Russian territory. Stone fortress construction gained particular momentum after the creation of new kremlins in Moscow and Veliky Novgorod. The Moscow Kremlin at that time became an architectural model for many Russian city planners.

The fortress towers changed especially in the 16th century. Along with wooden beam bridges, they increasingly began to have vaulted ceilings over the lower tiers, and their internal staircases led not only to the upper rooms, but also to the battle platforms of the walls. The loopholes of the fortress towers also began to be made in a new way. On the inside they were equipped with large vaulted chambers intended for mounting cannons, and on the outside they received a small bell, which made it easy to aim the cannon barrels. In the Orekhov fortress and in the Nizhny Novgorod Kremlin, the loopholes of the towers were even equipped with special ventilation ducts that removed powder gases from them.

The appearance of the fortress towers has also changed in many ways. Round towers begin to be equipped with edges, which makes them more plastic, in addition to the base roller, they receive horizontal thrusts in the upper parts and, like the towers of the Moscow Kremlin, acquire modest elements of decorative decoration. Observation towers were often installed above the corner towers, from where the surrounding area was monitored.

Rectangular towers were subjected to a kind of architectural regulation in the 16th century. Depending on their purpose and location, they are divided into blind and drive-through. The first of them were smaller and more modest in decorative decoration, the second were larger and richer in processing.

Particular attention was paid to the gate towers. Taking care of the defensive capability of these towers, architects often build them with cranked passages in plan, but often also provide them with through passages, turning them into a kind of grand entrance. Typically, such towers were topped with taller and steeper tents, and in some cases with special watchtowers, which greatly enriched their silhouette. Very often, from an ensemble of towers, gate towers stood out not only for their compositional complexity, but also for their architectural treatment.

Lateral archers, previously unknown in fortress architecture, are also becoming widespread. They are built close to the gate towers, as, for example, in the Kremlins of Moscow, Tula and Zaraysk, and at some distance from them, on opposite sides of the ditches, as in the Kremlin of Nizhny Novgorod. In these cases, the diversion arrows are connected to the gate towers by means of permanent or drawbridges.

Starting from the end of the 15th century, major changes were made to the architecture of the fortress walls. As in the Moscow Kremlin, they almost everywhere receive wide semi-circular niches on the back sides, which become a characteristic feature of Russian fortress architecture.

In the 16th century, the two-horned prong finally became widespread. Appearing for the first time on the walls and towers of the Moscow Kremlin, such a prong then became an integral part of the vast majority of Russian fortresses.

An unusual phenomenon in defense architecture was the appearance on the arched openings of the gate towers of the Moscow Kremlin, the towers of the “Old City” of the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery and, especially, decorative frames along the edges of the loopholes of the towers and fortress walls of Smolensk.

In the 17th century, the nature of urban work became different. The construction of timber-earth and earthen fortifications begins. Such fortifications are being created in the Volga region. The old fortifications of the famous Trinity-Sergius Lavra and the Pafnutiev-Borovsky Monastery are being modernized.

In the second half of the 17th century. defensive structures of the Savvino-Storozhevsky monastery near Zvenigorod, Spaso-Prilutsky in Vologda, Borisoglebsky near Rostov, Donskoy and Novodevichy near Moscow are created, the fortifications of the Joseph-Volokolamsky monastery are restored.

Carrying out this construction, architects give the plans of defensive structures the correct geometric configuration and place towers in the corners and perimeter of the walls, turning them into complex three-tiered structures.

Gradually, craftsmen began to pay attention to the external design of the fortress walls. Their planes are equipped with horizontal rods, framed with a bolster and stepped profiled semicircles in the upper parts of the hinged battlement loopholes. Along the way, other decorative elements are introduced to soften the severity of the architecture. defensive architecture Rus' serf

The architects of the 17th century treated towers with special interest and attention. They change their device. In the Spaso-Prilutsky Monastery, for example, fortress towers are even erected with massive pillars in the center, on which the beams of the interfloor floors rest. Inside the pillars of the towers of the “New City” of the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery, there are stairs that allow you to climb to their upper tiers and observation towers rising above them.

But the architects pay most attention to the appearance of the corner and intermediate towers. in the second half of the century, fortress towers of monasteries increasingly began to turn into completely independent architectural structures. In the Spaso-Prilutsky and Kirillo-Belozersky monasteries, for example, each of the towers was interpreted in its own way, both in terms of size and proportional construction.

Thus, decorative patterning, which reached an extraordinary flowering in Russian architecture of the 17th century, energetically penetrates into serf architecture. After the superstructure of the Spasskaya Tower of the Moscow Kremlin in the second quarter of the 17th century with a magnificent stone top, the fortress towers of monasteries quite often began to be built with rich decorative superstructures. The massive trunks of the towers of that time were treated with elegant figured decorations. Particularly indicative in this regard is the Joseph-Volokolamsky Monastery, in which each tower is equipped with decorative brickwork.

In the middle and second half of the 17th century, the entrance towers of monasteries were decorated especially magnificently. They often began to be equipped with two passages, decorated on the sides with decorative columns. The contrast between the strict, sometimes even archaic bottom and the fabulously lush top of such towers in some cases becomes their distinctive feature. This contrast was especially evident at the gate tower of the Spaso-Evfimievsky Monastery - a unique structure of its kind. At the Boris and Gleb Church, the entrance structures even turn into closely fused “complexes” of buildings, consisting of roadways with a passage at the top.

Color also begins to play a huge role in the architecture of fortified buildings of monasteries. The contrast between the red brick of the masonry and the white stone of the individual parts makes them especially striking.

All this leads to the fact that defensive structures become bright, colorful and picturesque. At the end of the 17th century, the strengthening of monasteries became a purely symbolic matter. In some cases, their fortifications begin to resemble ordinary fences. At the same time, monastery city construction begins to influence the construction of commercial buildings, as a result of which vast, purely civil buildings appear - living courtyards with arches facing the inside of the economic territory, and then shopping arcades, which, thanks to the open arched galleries from the city side, seemed like inverted image of the monastery walls.

In general, serf architecture ceased to exist at the beginning of the 18th century; it completely merges with civil architecture.

This is the general picture of the development of fortress architecture in Rus'. Each of them had its own types of defensive structures, its own fortress architecture. Of course, not all defensive structures of ancient Rus' have survived to this day. Most of them have long since disappeared from the face of the earth. However, those that remain are magnificent architectural monuments that have their own individual architectural and artistic merits.