A narrow rocky promontory at the confluence of the Pskova River with the Velikaya River, where the Kremlin is located, is considered the birthplace of the city of Pskov, which developed on the basis of an older Slavic settlement.
Many who visit such historical sites or see them anywhere believe that such a fortress has always been. Of course, it could have been destroyed at some time in the past. But the object was always quickly restored and it was in "working" condition, was always ready to carry its protective function.
But this cannot be attributed to almost any of the ancient fortresses (well, except for the capital ones). Many provincial fortresses for a very long time were in a deplorable, almost completely destroyed state. And I do not think that all the destruction can only be attributed to the military actions of the past. I will try to draw the reader's attention to moments that make me think so.
Pskov Kremlin in the early 20th century The lower part is very eroded.
First, the official historical information.
The assumption about the presence of a stone wall of the Kremlin in antiquity is confirmed by the chronicle mention of 1065 about the unsuccessful siege of Krom by the Polotsk prince, who failed to destroy the wall with stone-throwing tools - "vices").
I will not list all the official historical moments in the life of the Kremlin, there are many of them and you can read about it here.
I draw your attention only to a few, for example, what is the official historical fact:
Promotional video:
In 1701, preparing for war with the Swedes, Peter I ordered to strengthen and modernize the Pskov fortress. In the Kremlin, earthen ramparts were erected in the shape of a horseshoe, at the top of which was the tower of Kutekrom. The upper tiers of the tower were brought down to the level of the bastion.
Large sections of the eastern and western walls were covered with earth to the level of the running platforms. Wooden coverings were removed to prevent fire; cannons were installed on the earthen bastions.
Interesting modernization, isn't it? This is called destruction. Modernization is strengthening, strengthening, completion.
After the Nishtadt Peace, the western borders of Russia moved away from Pskov. The fortifications of the Kremlin and the entire city became obsolete, and those that were no longer supported began to be intensively destroyed. In 1787 Pskov was excluded from the number of active fortresses.
And all the subsequent time in official sources the fortress was only destroyed.
Only in 1953-1954. work began to remove from the emergency state and restore sections of the western and southern walls. In 1955-1959. the Low Wall was restored to the Kutekrom tower, then the western wall spun to the Dovmont Tower; by 1961, the restoration of the Kutekrom tower was completed.
Etc.
I suggest looking at historical photographs before reconstruction and modern ones after:
Do you think that in ancient times they made very poor quality bricks that did not stand the test of time? Although here in the photo, the brickwork looks like adobe brickwork.
Brick in ancient times was even better in characteristics than its modern counterparts (except for refractories - they are stronger).
For example, here is what they write about the brick used in the laying of the Great Wall of China:
A group of scientists who have studied in our time ceramic bricks from a separate part of the Great Wall of China were shocked by the results of laboratory experiments: this brick was subjected to severe strength tests, which it withstood with dignity, remaining unharmed. Scientists have discovered an amazing fact: ancient Chinese ceramic bricks are able to withstand loads that in our time can only withstand reinforced concrete structures. It is still a mystery how bricks made with the use of primitive technology have such phenomenal properties. The strength potential contained in ancient ceramic bricks would be the envy of many technological bases of modern production that produce building ceramic bricks today.
But back to photography.
The masonry could begin to collapse not from old age or from destruction during military operations, but only if the brick had been in the water, it was completely saturated with moisture. After that, it begins to crumble like a raw brick, like an adobe mass. Its strength falls at times, it crumbles at the slightest impact. You guessed what I mean? It doesn't look like a flood with such a water level.
By the way, pay attention to the building, which is almost half covered. And the lack of vegetation along the banks. Now this kind of rivers can be found only in mountainous areas. The banks of the plain rivers are overgrown with grass and moisture-loving trees and bushes. Accumulations of cobblestones not covered with river silt are also rare now.
Here is a brick with strong traces of erosion.
The Kremlin is in a deplorable state, but the temple is perfect.
A stump from a huge tree. This means that such people used to grow here. But in the photographs of the early 20th century. - none of these sizes is observed.
The impression is that the Kremlin has experienced some kind of cataclysm.
Why did Peter I need to fill the walls with soil? This reduces their protective functions during assault from water. Better gun protection? But there were other sections of the walls that were not covered. They would shoot at them.
Such an observation. The brick was destroyed at the very top of the tower and below, at the base to the middle of the height. Above it is clear - the rains, the brick that has collected moisture in the frost is destroyed in one season. But how to understand such erosion at the base and up to the middle? Only if the walls were in the water for a while.
Modern views of the Pskov Kremlin:
Foundations of some buildings on the territory of the fortress are visible.
The upper and right parts of the wall have been restored.
The reconstruction is better seen here.
Reconstructions continue sporadically. Pay attention to the ground level on the right and the remains of buildings on the left.
From everything I saw in old photographs, I got a picture of something that happened in recent historical time. The supporters of the official history may start "throwing stones at me", but this is my opinion. Not all of their said to be taken on faith. It is time to doubt in many respects what is their facts today.
