Defensive structures are a bright and unique phenomenon in the history of ancient Russian culture. Much attention was paid to the construction of such structures. This was explained by the fact that military operations in the Middle Ages took place almost continuously. However, for the most part, the battles were of a very limited scale, and small military detachments participated in them. At the same time, they could occur not only on the borders of the country, but in any place and at any time. It was possible to live more or less safely only under the protection of the fortress walls. That is why the defensive structures were of such great importance and were built in such large numbers.

In the Middle Ages, the feudal lord, as a representative of the ruling class, owned not only land, but also a fortified castle, which gave him the opportunity to subdue the surrounding population and not be afraid of clashes with the troops of neighboring feudal lords. The castle-both a feudal lord's dwelling and a fortress-is one of the most characteristic phenomena of the Middle Ages. But fortifications were built not only by individual feudal lords; powerful fortresses were built by the central authority of the feudal state, such structures were all medieval cities, and in early times, many rural communities. Russian chronicles are filled with reports about the construction of cities, their siege and defense. But the word "city" in the Old Russian language did not mean a city in the socio-economic meaning of this concept, but only a fortified settlement, as opposed to an unfortified one. Thus, the concept of "city" included both medieval cities proper, as well as military fortresses, feudal castles, and even fortified villages. Everything that was surrounded by a defensive wall was called a city. Moreover, up to the 17th century, the word was often applied even to the fortifications themselves, denoting defensive walls with this term.

Historians have long been interested in the monuments of ancient Russian military construction. 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 Art1 . This work was carried out at a very high scientific level for its time. It could be assumed that in further research, the history of ancient Russian defensive structures will receive an even more vivid and detailed development. However, this did not happen. All the authors who wrote on this topic in the second half of the 19th century and even in the first half of the 20th century mostly repeated the conclusions of F. Laskovsky. This peculiar situation is explained by the fact that his work was the completion of a certain-

1 F. Laskovsky. Materials for the history of engineering art in Russia. Part 1. St. Petersburg, 1858.

page 56
the first stage of the study of Russian defensive structures, the stage associated with the mobilization of written sources, primarily Russian chronicles. F. Laskovsky attracted real remains of monuments of military architecture only for the XVI-XVII centuries; speaking of an earlier time, he relied exclusively on chronicle data. Meanwhile, the main source for studying ancient Russian defensive structures was supposed to be the remains of these structures-ancient settlements. However, military historians did not deal with them at all, and archaeologists considered ancient settlements exclusively as remnants of settlements, usually not interested in military engineering structures.

The most clear picture of the state of study of monuments of ancient Russian defensive construction is given by the chapter "Fortifications" in the first volume of the "Cultural History of Ancient Russia", published more than 20 years ago.2 The author of the chapter, N. N. Voronin, used all the archaeological material known at that time and scientific literature related to Russian fortifications of the pre-Mongol period. Nevertheless, he was forced to build the presentation mainly on the basis of written sources, only supplementing this data with an analysis of several preserved stone-brick military objects unique to Ancient Russia. As for the wood-earth fortifications that dominated Russia at the time under study, N. N. Voronin was able to use only a few, and even then insufficiently studied monuments. The insignificant number of objects studied made it impossible to identify the development of defensive structures, and the entire military architecture of the X-XIII centuries was considered as something unified. The study of defensive structures according to written sources, supported by only a few examples of monuments, did not allow us to reveal the general patterns of development of the Old Russian military engineering art, its connection with tactics, with the organization of the army and, more generally, with the socio-economic development of Russia. Somewhat later, in 1952, N. N. himself Voronin wrote: "The lack of special studies of individual monuments of ancient Russian fortress architecture has determined the unacceptable situation that until now the main capital work on the history of ancient Russian fortress architecture is the book by F. Laskovsky, published in 1858." 3
In order to successfully study the history of ancient Russian military engineering art or even more narrowly-the history of military architecture, it was necessary to start a systematic study of ancient settlements, considering them from the point of view of military engineering problems. Such a task was first formulated at an archaeological conference in Moscow, held in 1945. The situation has changed dramatically in the 25 years since then. Archaeologists have excavated the most important monuments of ancient Russian military architecture, such as the fortifications of Kiev, Moscow, Vladimir, Novgorod, Galich, Pereyaslavl, Ryazan and others. A significant part of ancient Russian ancient settlements was examined and the design of the defensive ramparts of many of them was studied. A detailed analysis of many monuments served as the basis for more or less well-founded reconstructions of the original forms and appearance of ancient fortifications. This, in turn, made it possible to try to raise the issue of the development of artistic and compositional techniques of ancient Russian military architecture. A continuous survey of military facilities in a number of territories has led to the solution of many historical and geographical issues.

2 "History of culture of ancient Russia", Vol. I. M.-L. 1948.

3 "Fortifications of ancient Russia", Moscow, 1952, p. 5.

page 57
it allowed us to more fully reveal the general strategic principles of defense of various Russian principalities.

The actual material on the history of ancient Russian defensive structures is now presented not by random monuments, but by large series of them, which allow us to judge the military architecture of Ancient Russia with a sufficient degree of objectivity and completeness. This made it possible to raise the question of the general laws of the development of defensive structures and the connections of this process with socio-economic phenomena. Consideration of monuments of military architecture in the process of development made it possible to establish the basis for the periodization of the Old Russian military engineering art4 . Comparison of Russian fortifications with each other and with monuments of neighboring countries showed the presence of local variants in various regions of Ancient Russia, and also revealed common national features of ancient Russian military architecture.

Of course, many issues related to the development of the ancient Russian military engineering art have not yet been resolved. Thus, not everything has been clarified regarding the origin of various planned types and structures of Russian fortifications, it is not always possible to clearly identify local groups of monuments of military architecture, it is only sketchily necessary to draw the appearance and structures of completely disappeared aboveground parts of defensive structures, and it is also approximately possible to reconstruct the architectural and artistic appearance of these monuments. However, despite the presence of significant gaps and still insufficient knowledge of the material, the overall picture of the development of military architecture in ancient Russia is already emerging at present with sufficient certainty .5
The earliest stage in the development of Russian architecture is the period before the formation of the early feudal state, that is, the VIII-first half of the X century. This period is represented by monuments of military architecture not in the entire territory of Ancient Russia. In the south-eastern part, on the left bank of the Dnieper River, there are a large number of remnants of defensive structures of that time - ancient settlements of the Romensk-Borshev culture. In the more western regions, such mounds are almost nonexistent, and by the time before the middle of the tenth century, only a small number of mounds in the areas bordering the steppe (mainly in the territory of modern Moldavia), and a few mounds of Polesie belong here.

The Romensk-Borshev settlements are remnants of fortifications that are extremely primitive in the organization of their defense. The role of artificial defensive structures (mainly moats and palisades) is very small here, and all attention is paid to the use of natural protective properties of the terrain. Such fortifications served only to give the population the opportunity to strengthen themselves for a short time of an enemy invasion. At the same time, it was implied that the enemies - steppe nomads - are completely unable to conduct an organized siege and can capture fortified settlements only by sudden arrival (in Old Russian, "izgon", or "izvezd"). In such conditions, it was enough to have at least the most primitive structures adapted to passive defense. In the western regions, judging by the few known monuments, fortifications at this time were built somewhat differently. Here are known ancient settlements located on the flat

4 See P. A. Rappoport and V. V. Kostochkin. On the question of periodization of the history of ancient Russian military architecture. "Brief Reports" of the Institute of the History of Material Culture of the USSR Academy of Sciences, Issue 59, Moscow, 1955, p. 22.

5 See P. A. Rappoport. Essays on the history of Russian military architecture of the X-XIII centuries. Moscow-L. 1956; his. Essays on the history of military architecture of North-Eastern and North-Western Russia of the X-XV centuries. Moscow-L. 1961; his. Military architecture of the West Russian lands of the X-XIV centuries L. 1967; V. V. Kostochkin. Russian Defense Architecture, Moscow, 1962.

page 58
areas that have a more or less regular round shape in the plan. However, even in such fortifications, they still tried to use the natural protective properties of the terrain, and artificial defensive structures had little power. The tactical principle of defense here completely coincided with the fortifications of the Dnieper Left Bank: defensive structures of this time are means that make it possible to sit out passively during a short - term enemy raid.

Fortifications of this primitive type, even at that time, did not always ensure the safety of the population, especially in cases where nomads attacked in large numbers. Evidence of this is the numerous settlements of the Dnieper Left Bank, which were burned by the Pechenegs at the end of the IX-first half of the X century.

In the second half or end of the tenth century, a new stage in the development of Russian military architecture begins. At this time, due to the final addition of the early feudal state, well-armed military forces appeared, and at the same time significantly greater opportunities for the defense of fortifications. At about the same time, a more organized siege tactic was finally formed - a passive, but systematic and prolonged blockade - "lying down". To counteract this siege system, they began to build more advanced fortresses that have powerful artificial defensive structures and make it possible to shoot at the enemy from the entire perimeter of the fortification. Economic opportunities for the construction of such fortresses appeared only with the formation of feudal society: for the construction of a princely fortress, the fortifications of a medieval city, or even a boyar fortified manor, of course, it was possible to mobilize significantly more labor than for the construction of communal fortifications. The most grandiose example of fortifications of that time are the ramparts, moats and walls of the "city of Yaroslav" in Kiev, built in the 30s of the XI century under Prince Yaroslav the Wise. According to rough estimates, in order to build this gigantic defensive system, it was necessary to mobilize more than 1,000 workers for a period of at least four years.

At a new stage in the development of military architecture, fortifications, as before, have distinctive features in various regions of Ancient Russia. In the Middle Dnieper region, as well as in North-Eastern and North-Western Russia, these are exclusively fortifications of the cape and island types, that is, they are completely subordinate to the natural protective properties of the terrain. However, in the fortresses of the late X and XI centuries, unlike earlier ones, artificial defensive structures - powerful ramparts and log wooden walls-became very important. The defensive properties of the terrain were still largely used, but the primary role was gradually transferred to artificial parts of the defensive system. In the Western Russian lands, the picture was somewhat different. Here, in parallel with fortifications that use the terrain and have an irregular shape in the plan corresponding to the configuration of this relief, various variants of rounded fortifications located on flat terrain became widespread already in the X - XI centuries. This phenomenon is explained by the close ties that existed between the western regions of Russia and the West Slavic lands, in which the round type of fortresses had a long tradition. Tactically, the round fortresses of Western Russia met the same military requirements as the fortresses located on capes or on individual hills. Indeed, since the main method of taking fortresses at that time was a long siege - "lying down", the defense scheme had to be built on shooting from the entire perimeter of the fortress.-

page 59
fast walls, directed straight forward in the direction of the enemy, that is, on frontal shooting. Such shooting did not allow the besiegers to approach the fortifications and break into the fortress. But for conducting such shooting, rounded fortresses in terms of plan were adapted to an even greater extent than fortresses associated with hilly terrain. Such a system of defense organization, formed in the second half or end of the X century, continued to dominate Russian military engineering during the XI and XII centuries. Of course, during this time, tactical techniques were improved, but the basic principles did not change significantly.

Among all the types of defensive structures that existed in Russia in the second half of the X and XI centuries, the round fortresses that were widespread in the Western Russian lands most fully met the tactical requirements of that time. Due to their location on flat, often low-lying terrain, these fortresses were guaranteed against the hidden approach of enemies and sudden capture. This type of fortifications was especially instilled in the construction of boyar and princely estates, that is, feudal castles. This circumstance contributed to the massive spread of round fortresses in the XII century throughout the territory of the Russian land.

Significant changes in the tactics of besieging fortifications become noticeable in Russia by the end of the XII century. and they are especially noticeable in the first half of the XIII century. Instead of passive "lying down", an assault - "taking a spear" - is becoming increasingly widespread. The tactics of assault, supported by the action of stone-throwing machines - "vices", were formed in Russia in the XIII century, and the Russians faced the same tactics at that time in battles with Poles, Hungarians, and German knights. The same tactics were brought by the Tatar-Mongol troops who invaded Russia.

The influence of the Mongol invasion on the development of Russian military architecture was controversial. On the one hand, it led to a general decline in the level of Russian military engineering equipment, which is explained by the severe consequences of the Mongol invasion. In a significant part of the Russian land, the construction of defensive structures was generally interrupted for quite a long time. But, on the other hand, the Mongols had a well-developed tactic for storming fortresses, and although such tactics began to take shape in Russia even before the Mongols, the Mongol invasion accelerated the final transition to a new defensive tactic. By the middle of the 13th century, the assault became a completely dominant method of capturing fortifications. To counteract the assault, new forms of defense organization are being developed and, accordingly, new forms of defensive structures are being developed.

Information about the development of fortresses that we have for the second half of the XIII century is extremely fragmentary. On the territory of the Middle Dnieper region, after the Mongol invasion, the construction of defensive structures stopped for a long time. Fortresses of this time are also unknown in the northern Russian lands, although construction or at least restoration of destroyed fortifications was still carried out on a limited scale. The development of military architecture in the second half of the 13th century can be traced so far only in the western regions of Volhynia. Here, at that time, a completely new tactical scheme of defense organization was being formed, "single-tower fortresses" appeared, that is, fortresses whose main defense node was a powerful tower, mostly located not in the line of the fortress walls, but inside the fortified territory. Such a tower tactically represents a complete analogy to the Western European donjons. This type of fortress fully met the requirements that were imposed on defensive structures in connection with the emergence of new techniques

page 60
sieges. However, this type was formed in Volhynia in specific forms associated with the influence of the military architecture of Western neighbors. Judging by recent studies, to some extent the method of building "single-tower fortresses" was widespread in the first half of the XIV century and in the Novgorod land6 .

At the same time, already in the XIII century, and in the first half of the XIV century, another trend becomes particularly important - a return to the maximum use of the protective properties of the relief. Already during the Mongol invasion, it became clear that the Mongols could not capture those fortresses that were located in hard - to-reach places and against which they could not use their military equipment-stone-throwing machines. Indeed, since the assault was carried out only where the besiegers could overwhelm the defenders ' rifle defenses with the help of stone throwers, those sides of the fortress where these vehicles could not be installed close to the defensive walls (no further than 100 - 150 m) were guaranteed against assault. Therefore, during the construction of fortifications, they began to be located on sites protected by steep river banks, high slopes or wide ravines. The possibility of storming such fortifications existed only in a small area of their perimeter, where there were no natural obstacles and where the besiegers could install stone throwers, that is, from the floor side. This most dangerous side (the side "from the attack") was made more fortified than the others, and towers were also concentrated here. The presence of towers made it possible to conduct flanking shooting (that is, shooting directed not forward, but along the fortress walls). It was flanking shooting that was the most effective type of shooting during the period of repelling an assault, when the enemy was accumulating at the base of defensive walls and trying to climb these walls. The remaining sides of the fortification were adapted only for frontal firing. This is the explanation for the "one-sided" nature of the organization of fortresses, which finally took shape in Russia by the middle of the XIV century.

So, there is reason to believe that the stage of development of ancient Russian defensive structures, which began in the second half of the XIII century, had two phases: the first, when the dominant type was "single-tower fortresses", but the desire to strengthen the floor side was clearly felt, and the second, when a "one-sided" system of fortress defense was finally formed, providing a flanking strafing along this floor side. The beginning of this stage in the development of military architecture (the second half of the 13th century) does not coincide chronologically with the beginning of feudal fragmentation in Russia, although these phenomena are certainly related to each other. The emergence in the 12th century of strong and independent feudal principalities, often at war with one another, created an environment in which the tactics of assault, carried out with the support of stone-throwing tools, could develop. This tactic itself was formed already in the first half of the XIII century, but in military architecture it was clearly reflected only from the second half of this century.

The appearance of firearms in Russia in the 80s of the XIV century at first did not change either the tactics of the siege or the structure of fortresses. True, cannons were now being used simultaneously for siege and defense, but these early cannons were still little more effective than stone throwers in terms of range and effectiveness. Therefore, the tactics of assault, typical for the first half of the XIV century, did not change. On the contrary, it was in the first half of the 15th century that this tactic was most developed. Similarly, the greatest perfection

6 V. V. Kostochkin and A. A. Draghi. Bonfire of Posadnik Yakov in Korel. "Cultural monuments". 4. M.-L. 1963, p. 18.

page 61
At this time, we also reached the "one-sided" type of fortress. However, with the introduction of firearms, there were significant changes in the design of towers, the thickness of walls, and especially in the design of loopholes.

Further development of artillery and especially an increase in its range led to the emergence of new assault tactics. The guns that supported the assault were located at a much greater distance from the walls of the fortress than the stone throwers, and provided fire not from one floor side, but mostly from all sides. In addition, the bombardment now had a different purpose-not only to knock down the defensive parapets, but also to break through the fortress walls themselves and open the way for the besiegers. The natural response to this new tactic was the appearance in the second half of the 15th century of a new type of fortress - with towers evenly spaced along the entire perimeter, which made it possible to protect all the walls of the fortress with flanking fire. The most perfect expression of this structure was "regular" fortresses, which have the shape of a rectangle in the plan, and less often-a triangle or polygon. It should be noted that it was from the second half of the XV century that stone and brick fortresses began to be widely used in Russia. In earlier times, all Russian defensive structures were usually made of wood; stone fortresses in the XIII - XIV centuries were known only in the Novgorod land and in Western Volhynia.

Mass production of cannons and the widespread introduction of firearms in the army for both siege and fortress defense turned out to be possible in Russia only with the formation of a centralized state. Thus, the new stage of development of military architecture, which began in the second half of the XV century, corresponds to the era of the Russian centralized state.

The study of defensive structures, their territorial location and combat use allows us to find out at least in the most general terms the strategic principles of organizing the defense of the ancient Russian state and individual Russian lands.

The early feudal state in Russia was formed in such geographical conditions that a significant part of its territory, many political centers, including the capital city of Kiev, were located in the forest-steppe zone and accessible to the raids of steppe nomads. Therefore, the organization of defense of the southern Russian lands from the steppe was the most important military and political task of Kievan Rus. But it was impossible to create a continuous defensive line on the border with the steppe, protected by a special garrison or at least guard posts: the administrative apparatus of the early feudal state could not cope with such a task. The assumption that in the X-XI centuries. The Russian land was covered from the south by border lines, the remnants of which are the so-called Zmievy Valy, it turned out to be erroneous. The Serpentine Ramparts are actually monuments dating back to the Early Iron Age and have nothing to do with Ancient Russia.

The only real possibility of engineering strengthening of the southern Russian borders in the era of the early feudal state was the construction of fortified settlements - cities (in the Old Russian meaning of the word). During enemy incursions into such fortifications, the population could gather not only the settlement itself, but also nearby villages. At the same time, fortified settlements also played a more important strategic role. Located on convenient routes of approach to the vital centers of Southern Russia, these towns made it difficult for nomads to raid, and sometimes even impossible. Even if the steppe peoples attacked under such conditions, they did not penetrate far into the Russian territory, as they could always expect a blow from the rear, from Russian cities that they had not captured. Therefore, the Kievan princes at-

page 62
they gave great importance to the construction of fortresses in the southern regions of Russia. Archaeological and chronicle sources speak of a large scale of such military construction under Vladimir Svyatoslavich and Yaroslav the Wise .7
A significant change in the military situation in the southern regions of Russia occurred in the second half of the XI century, when new enemies appeared in the steppes - the Polovtsians. By the end of the 11th century, the Polovtsian onslaught was so intense that the southern borders of Russia were noticeably pushed to the north. The large number of Russian settlements throughout the forest-steppe, where life ceased at the end of the 11th century, indicates a much more significant role of the Polovtsian invasion than it could be assumed on the basis of written sources .8 The threat of the Polovtsians ' devastation of all of Southern Russia caused the Russian princes to join forces to fight back. This is connected with the princely congresses, and then the" monocracy " of Monomakh and his son Mstislav.

After the defeat of the Polovtsians by Monomakh, the tense situation in Southern Russia was somewhat relieved and the reverse advance of the Russian population to the south began. In the Dnieper region, Russian fortresses were restored up to the mouth of the Sula and Poros, and to the west-to the upper reaches of the Southern Bug. However, some areas on the border with the steppe were never repopulated by the Russians, but remained in the hands of nomads.

In the southern Russian regions, to protect themselves from the Polovtsians, barriers were created from the nomads planted in the fortresses of Porosya of the allied Rus (black hoods) and sentry detachments (epic "bogatyr outposts") were set up on the border with the steppe. One of the most important elements of defense was also the construction of fortresses in the entire forest-steppe zone, populated by special garrisons. Fortresses of this type were built according to a pre-planned plan and had residential and outbuildings associated with the design of defensive ramparts. The inhabitants of such fortresses were free warriors-farmers, apparently close in their social nature to the later Cossacks. In the 12th century, the process of feudal fragmentation of Russia led to the fact that the tasks of protecting the territory of each individual principality were solved independently, and not on a national scale.

The formation of many independent principalities in Russia led to the need to create fortified borders not only on the external borders of Russia, but also between individual Russian lands. Due to specific historical conditions, such border strengthening was pronounced in some cases, while in others it is almost invisible. Especially noticeable is the strengthening of the borders between the principalities in the fourteenth century, and mainly where these borders were more or less stable. For example, the border of the Principality of Tver, facing Moscow, was very strongly fortified. At the same time, there were also borders that did not have engineering fortifications at all; for example, there were no cities on the Novgorod-Pskov border, and the border of Novgorod land from the Moscow Principality was not fortified. However, even in the heyday of feudal fragmentation, strengthening the external borders was everywhere more important than strengthening the borders between the principalities. Thus, in the XII and XIII centuries, the western borders of the Galician and Volyn lands were well fortified, and in the XIV - XV centuries. Special attention was paid to the construction of numerous Novgorod and Pskov fortresses on the borders with Lithuania and the Order.

The nature of fortification of the borders remained the same until the 15th century: these were separate fortresses located in the most favorable conditions for the population.

7 See B. A. Rybakov. "Bogatyrskaya Zastava" on Stugna. "Cities of feudal Russia". Collection of articles, Moscow, 1966, p. 90.

8 See P. A. Rappoport. From the history of Southern Russia of the XI-XII centuries. "History of the USSR", 1966, N 5, p. 113.

page 63
local defenses. The transition to the creation of continuous border lines (zasechnaya line) dates back to the time of the formation of the Russian centralized state.

In the early Middle Ages, the creation of simple, economical and at the same time reliable defensive structures was a task that depended not only on the safety of people's property, but also on their lives. Therefore, already at a fairly early stage, the Eastern Slavs developed their own stable military engineering traditions, somewhat different in each tribal group, but ultimately having the task of using the landscape conditions characteristic of this area most advantageously for defense purposes.

Later, after the formation and consolidation of the Old Russian state, and especially with the onset of feudal fragmentation, similarities and differences in the structure of defensive structures began to be determined not by tribal traditions, but by political factors. The builders of the fortifications - the townspeople-were not artisans, but military engineering specialists, representatives of the princely administration. Therefore, in the development of military architecture, political trends that are characteristic of the principality on whose territory fortifications were built are of significant importance. However, in defensive construction, functional expediency was always decisive: princes could be at enmity with each other, but build fortresses in the same way, if this type of fortress was the most perfect for a given time. Therefore, the connection between the types and designs of defensive structures and political trends has never been as close as in cult architecture.

The process of feudal fragmentation of Russia at first did not cause the appearance of local "schools" of military architecture. On the contrary, in the XI century, the differences between local versions of defensive structures were smoothed out. A pronounced" school " of military architecture in the 12th century is preserved only in the Galician land, and at the beginning of the 13th century a small but very peculiar "school" was formed on the border of the Galician-Volhynian and Kievan principalities, in the so-called Bolokhov land. In the XII - XIII centuries, the process of leveling local features continued, but in the second half of the XIII century, the situation changed significantly. After the Mongol invasion, the development of military architecture in Galician-Volhynian Russia and other Russian lands diverged. In the XIV century, the difference between the military engineering "schools" of North-Eastern and North-Western Russia was clearly revealed. In the creation of various options for defensive construction, in addition to the peculiarities of the social system and local traditions, foreign policy conditions also played a significant role - the nature of the organization of the army and the armament of those enemies for protection from whom these structures were built.

A study of the history of military architecture and the relationships that exist between the evolution of defensive structures and social phenomena shows that, like all other aspects of social life, military architecture owes its development to changes in the level of productive forces and production relations. However, the connection between these phenomena is not always direct, most often it is reflected through general social and political changes that cause changes in the structure of armies and methods of warfare. However, since this connection exists, the history of the development of defensive structures ultimately reflects the history of statehood.

page 64

Постоянный адрес данной публикации: