The further into the forest, the thicker the partisans. The popular saying, of course, is not about the study of historical anomalies, but about the unwillingness to fight, without special need and the order "Not a step back" signed by Stalin. Nevertheless, reading into the realities of the very recent past from a non-standard, in relation to official history, angle, the guerrillas of doubt also grows thicker and stronger when logical chains begin to dock on the basis of financial, political, economic requirements, and not the words of historians “well, these are then there were tastes, mores, traditions … "or" the tyrant king ordered - everyone ran to obey. " And the people, it turns out, are not quite dense, and the kings are not drunken idiots with inferiority complexes.
Today we will move away from the unfortunate Petersburg, which, according to the official version, was built, apparently, with the whole globe, because only the number of allegedly perished during construction, first by Peter, and then with each subsequent landmark construction, surpasses all conceivable losses even during the conduct of the military action.
For example, according to the official version, during the war with Napoleon in 1812, 200K Russians died, and during the construction of St. Isaac's Cathedral 100K. At the same time, the population of Moscow and St. Petersburg at the beginning of the 19th century was approximately the same - 250-300K people each.
But in fact, there is a version that by the beginning of the 19th century Moscow was a very small settlement, insignificant, both for Russia the Holstein-Gottorp branch of the Oldenburgs, they are the Romanovs, and for Moscow Tartary, whoever ruled and led there, presumably from Smolensk or Kolomna.
Who and why attributed antiquity to Moscow
While you twist your finger to your temple, if you are unfamiliar with this version of events, I will tell you an anecdote from the early 2000s.
Promotional video:
For those who did not find this time, I will explain the essence! When Vladimir Vladimirovich became president for the first time, he began to put people he knew in a past life in leadership positions. An absolutely normal practice for a political system where the president decides something, and does not hang out on the threads of financial capital, as, for example, in America or Europe. Putin's past life was in St. Petersburg and even an unfamiliar and insignificant person from his hometown was more useful and safer in the environment than anyone else from the outside. Thus, a trusted circle was formed, which received the name "St. Petersburg". Frustrated and removed from power, Muscovites scoffed and made up jokes about this.
Today I want to rub a new painful spot on the body of a "native Muscovite" and explain why there is no need to talk about any "antiquity" of Moscow. As, incidentally, about its any important significance for Russia or Tartary, before the declaration of this place as the original capital of the Russian lands at the beginning of the 19th century.
This was done by the Romanovs-Oldenburgs, having gained access to central Russia, after a joint campaign with Napoleon against Tartary, during the so-called Patriotic War of 1812. It was vitally necessary to legitimize their own presence on the throne and historically outline the emergence, development, and replenishment of the lands they were going to unite under the flag of the Russian Empire. Karamzin coped with the writing, not to be confused with the description, of the events, with the forgery of the documents "Secret Chancellery" and the censorship introduced in 1803. They fixed everything, of course, with school textbooks.
Before starting again to twist your finger at your temple, please answer the question why the Frenchman did not take St. Petersburg, although he had at least two opportunities for this, but ran after Kutuzov back and forth? In this running, Kutuzov, retreating all the time, generally looks more like an escort who shows the hired "brothers" (since we mentioned 90-beginning 00) who needs to be soaked in order to squeeze out the land later.
Then, you can remember the battles in which the Russian army participated on the way to Paris. They, of course, appear somewhere, the Romanovs carried out a lot of work in terms of preparing documents, but I would be surprised if you remember something more than the entry of a Russian soldier into Paris.
On this topic, somehow later in more detail, now Moscow and its construction at the beginning of the XIX century. Briefly and fluently. As usual.
Why couldn't Moscow have been an important city until the middle of the 19th century?
To begin with, let's recall the geography and how at that time people, goods and armies moved around the globe. Even Ukraine, which, by the way, did not exist then, in any version of history.
An important city is not the one in which the king sits, but the one in which trade routes and, in general, roads converge. What are roads in those days? This is their complete absence. How did the goods move? Only by water. Therefore, New York, and not Washington, by the way.
All major powers are maritime powers, all capitals and major cities are on the water. Economy, plus troop movement and concentration.
It's not just the lack of roads, more cargo can be transported by water with less effort.
An illustrative, inhuman example! One cannon on land requires eight horses or more. There is only one woman for the whole barge. For Western liberals, I specify, a photograph of a female barge haule from Holland.
Until now, water transport is the cheapest. Large volumes are transported across the seas and oceans on huge ships, even where there is a direct (well, maybe not very straight) road over land. From China to Russia, everything is still sailing on ships, although it seems to be land.
River transport, but killed by the railroad in the 19th century. By the way, this is an answer to the question why the Romanovs-Oldenburgs built Moscow where it is now. We chose a place that was most convenient for rail transportation from the entire new territory.
The Moscow River, which was then called something differently, until the volitional decision of Comrade Stalin, to make it a port of many seas, was such a pitiful sight that it becomes somehow awkward. It seems like a river, but in fact….
Those who wanted to drown themselves in this reservoir experienced obvious problems. On the left, people stand in the middle of the river, but it does not reach their knees. Whatever you think about the exhausting hot summer, which drained all the earth's water bodies along with the Moscow stream, the remnants of ice on the right in the photo - high water, however !!! No matter how flooded!
Where, then, did the tsate of Tartary meet? Well, judging by the waterways and the remains of protective fortifications, then Kolomna is quite suitable for this role. And it is located on the Oka, which was more powerful than the Volga and the walls of the Kremlin are not fake, but really protective. Even the names of the towers are recognizable. They were later transferred, along with the remnants of history, to the new Moscow.
Old Moscow is Kolomna (possibly). What was the name of the place on which Moscow now stands, come up with or find it yourself. The village must have had a name.
Construction of modern Moscow
The place for the “new Moscow was chosen with a reserve for the future. A broad perspective of the railway age was opening up and a central hub was needed.
What prevented you from leaving Kolomna or who was in charge of Tartary there? Tver interfered! It was pumped during preparation for the seizure of the Moscow-Smolensk lands and it was quite officially the second (third) capital city. Through 2 points you can draw only one straight line, geometry teaches us. The king was an educated man.
It is not easy to take and build a city that, as it were, is already 500 years old! The first step was disguise. To do this, they invented the Napoleonic fire, which either Napoleon himself created, running around the city with matches, or Muscovites opened gas combs and blew everything up.
There was no Gazprom then, so the residents had nothing to discover. As for undermining the Kremlin by Napoleon, just calculate how much gunpowder you have to spend. Please do not confuse gunpowder and, for example, C4 or even just dynamite. It turns out that the army in the campaign could simply not have such a quantity, and if there was, would Napoleon spend all his supplies on fireworks?
The main thing is that now it is possible to build the city anew, in accordance with the newly written history, and no one will ask what the “Commission on the construction of Moscow” has been doing for 30 years. It was founded in 1813 and worked until 53, when everything needed was built.
Having built, they began to draw "ancient" maps of the development of Moscow, so to speak from nature. This led to the fact that the area of Moscow in the 16th century turned out to be larger than London in 1807, Berlin in 1860 and New York in 1840. Of course, pride covers, and one wants to believe in a medieval metropolis, but common sense should always be on the alert.
Drawn maps had to be distributed. Preferably copies from originals. Like an ancient history that has come down to us, only in the retellings of descendants. Not a single original from Geradot or, at worst, Homer.
In New Moscow, there is a Kamer-Kollezhsky Val with checkpoints, the strictest police control and a ban on entry without special permission. The "old" maps tell us that it seems to have been here before, but firstly why, and secondly, on the maps, just the proposed restoration (construction) of Moscow, it is still being built and some sections have not been fully approved.
In the city there are troops and the GENERAL-governor. The occupied lands must be protected.
And finally, the first road from St. Petersburg to Moscow began to be built in 1817. Not iron - ordinary. Why earlier? There was no city.
Somewhere around the 1860s. A lot of people, right?
The story, torn from the middle, turned out! It will be necessary to make a continuation about the war of 1812. Who! With whom? And why? More precisely for what?