The main strangeness of St. Petersburg is widely known, but few people are fully aware of it: having founded St. Petersburg, Peter-1 "opened a window to Europe." Why a window and not a door? After all, normal people do not walk through the windows, but look. In fact, it was not by chance that Pushkin put it this way - then through Petersburg it was possible to look to Europe only with his eyes, and not touch with pens.
Pushkin himself understood this perfectly and in the author's note to his line “to cut a window to Europe” he directly refers to the original source - the French words of Francesco Algarotti: “Petersburg is a window through which Russia looks to Europe”.
But sources of mass knowledge such as school textbooks and the notorious Wikipedia persistently broadcast: "Cut a window to Europe" is a catch phrase from Alexander Pushkin's poem "The Bronze Horseman", characterizing the founding of the city of St. Petersburg by Peter the Great - the first seaport of the Moscow state."
Thus, in one phrase, everyone is told at least a double lie:
1.like Petersburg is a seaport
2. As if Petersburg is the first port of the Moscow state
Let's analyze the bullshit point by point.
Promotional video:
Lies No. 1 as if St. Petersburg was founded as a seaport
A real seaport, as it was, and to this day remains in Kronstadt on the Kotlin Island. From St. Petersburg seaport - like a bullet from shit. And this was clear from the very beginning to the legendary Peter-1 (before trying to object, it is recommended to first read at least "Prehistory of St. Petersburg. 1703" by A. Sharymov). Initially, not a single more or less serious ship could physically come directly to St. Petersburg - it would run aground in the Marquis puddle, as the St. Petersburg "seaside" of the swamp type was ironically called in the 19th century. And all sorts of enemy boats could be dealt with on the spot. Maybe that's why there never were any fortress walls near St. Petersburg, unlike any other decent city of that time? Or such a stupid city like the anecdotal “Elusive Joe” was simply not needed by anyone?
But on the other hand, not a single merchant ship could deliver goods directly to / from St. Petersburg. As it really was. The ships reached the Kotlin Island (Kronstadt), where they were loaded onto all sorts of boats and pontoon barges that could go to Petersburg.
The merchants swore that the delivery of goods from some London or New York to Kronstadt costs the same as reloading and delivery from Kronstadt to St. Petersburg, but there were no options. English sailors of the early 19th century had a saying: "The path from London to Kronstadt is much shorter than from Kronstadt to Vasilievsky Island."
It seems that they tried to fight this. As if how many times they made their way from St. Petersburg to the nearest real seaport of Kronstadt, they ruined a bunch of people, equipment and funds, but to no avail.
It is symbolic that this route is called not just the deepening of the navigable channel - the fairway, but the Sea Canal, similar to the waterways laid on land. How tired of all this intestinal obstruction, the natural constipation of the sediments of the Neva in the Gulf of Finland! A good seaport, to which you can sip seven miles of jelly, or rather 27 nautical miles in a swamp (isn't that where the saying goes)?
The real connection between St. Petersburg and Kronstadt appeared only thanks to the man with the “speaking” surname Putilov (doubt involuntarily creeps in - is this not a pseudonym?). In the 1860s, Putilov created a plant producing rails, steam locomotives, and so on for railroad communications.
But then "a new, even more ambitious task stuck in Putilov's head." The plant went to the seaside. There was no seaport as such in St. Petersburg. The Gulf of Finland is shallow. Cargoes from ocean-going ships were loaded onto barges in Kronstadt, and then towed to the Neva. Transhipment and delivery doubled the freight cost. Putilov planned to create a real seaport on the factory land, connecting it with Kronstadt by a deep-water canal. A special iron line had to be stretched to the port, and berths had to be built. A lot of money and approvals were required.
In the beginning, everything went very well. The emperor himself promised to finance the creation of the port. The Putilov plant brought in a huge income, and part of the funds could be invested in new construction. Two years later, a railway track was drawn to the port, and in 1876 they began to build a sea channel.
Putilov built the channel with his own money, and as a result, not without the help of his “friends,” he approached bankruptcy. State custody was appointed over the plant. Putilov died of a heart attack on April 18, 1880. Death saved him from shame and debt prison. Symbolically, according to his will, Putilov was buried in a chapel on the bank of the unfinished Sea Canal.
Over 20 years of construction during dredging works, 9.5 million cubic meters of soil were dredged, the total cost of the canal itself, harbors and port facilities amounted to 14.8 million rubles.
In the spring of 1885, the grand opening of the Putilov Sea Canal took place and St. Petersburg finally became the country's largest port.
Opening of the St. Petersburg sea channel, review of the squadron in Kronstadt drawing by Beggrov (from the magazine "World Illustration" 1885)
lan of the sea channel when it was opened in 1885 (from the magazine "World Illustration" 1885)
Painting by Alexander Karlovich Beggrov "Opening of the sea channel in St. Petersburg in 1885":
Lies number 2 allegedly St. Petersburg is the first seaport of the Moscow state
As we have already seen, St. Petersburg until the second half of the 19th century could be called a seaport only in mockery. According to official history, much earlier seaports of the Moscow State were:
- on the White Sea, the seaport of Arkhangelsk on the Northern Dvina since 1555;
- on the Sea of Azov - the seaport of Azov at the mouth of the Don, which was taken many times (too lazy to count how many 3-5-6?) - the first time allegedly in 1696, but finally only in 1774, and from Smolensk by a direct route down the Dnieper into the Black Sea without you could get, though if you overcome the famous rapids;
- the port of Astrakhan, it is simply impossible to build anything closer to the Caspian Sea in the swamps;
- in the end, if we are talking only about the Baltic Sea, then the much more convenient seaport of Riga on the Daugava (Western Dvina), which was taken in 1710, or the Ivangorod fortress on the Narva river, which supposedly has existed since the 1470s biennium
So to call St. Petersburg the FIRST seaport of the Moscow state is from the category of schizophrenia.
A vent hole in Muscovy
If, because of a section of shallow water only 27 nautical miles (47 km) in length, Petersburg was denied the right to be called a "door" (port - gate, door), then how can it be called based on the waterway to Moscow with a length of 2760 kilometers (see. "Travels from St. Petersburg to Moscow")? Neither a window nor a gap is suitable here, rather a hole, a tube or a dropper to Russia.
The area around St. Petersburg turned out to be extremely barren, unsuitable for agriculture, and feed always had to be transported from afar. It is not clear what they ate there at first, but since the time of Catherine-2, supplies have slowly begun from the Volga basin through Vyshny Volochek, for example, from Gzhatsk (modern Gagarin, Smolensk region).
Figuratively speaking, Petersburg at that time resembled a malaria patient who was stuck in a swamp and had to be fed through a tube - a narrow tube of the Vyshnevolotsk water system.
And this is not a joke at all. There was a moment when, due to miscalculations in design and lack of water, ships with bread got stuck in the Vyshnevolotsk system, and St. Petersburg almost fell off from hunger, first of all servants and other workers: “I cannot stay without food. Where am I going to eat ?!"
More or less normal supply of St. Petersburg from the Volga basin was established only at the beginning of the 19th century after the laying of the Mariinsky and Tikhvin water systems, converging in Rybinsk, which is why it later became the "burlak capital". But that would be half the trouble, the trouble is that out of all the bad terrain for St. Petersburg, the worst place was chosen - on the swampy islands of the Neva delta, which was originally programmed for all subsequent problems.
The shelter of the poor Chukhontsi By the time of the founding of St. Petersburg, the ideal, never flooded place on the mainland near the mouth of the Neva was already occupied by the Swedes - at the confluence of the Okhta into the Neva, there was a fortress Nyenskans (now exactly on this place Gazprom is building its pompous Halabuda). What to do?
Illustration by A. Benois.
Pushkin tells us how it was: “On the shore of the desert waves He stood, full of great thoughts, And looked into the distance. Before him the river rushed widely; the poor canoe Aspired along it lonely. Along the mossy swampy banks Cherneli huts here and there, Shelter of the poor Chukhonts."
Shit, but this is an idea - we will drive the poor Chukhonts out and from the mossy swampy shores "in spite of our arrogant neighbor we will threaten the Swede from here" - we will show a fig to Nyenskans and at the same time in the opposite direction a fig across the Baltic Sea!
Then we will expel the Swede from Nyenskans, but we will not live there, but we will abandon this good fortress, so reliably that the descendants will only discover something by excavations. Better to build another good one, on Hare Island, called Peterburkh, but we won't live there either, just bury it. And we will live in a wooden hut on the mossy swampy banks as a Chukhon lived there. By the way, this is what happened - all subsequent emperors up to Nicholas-1 lived right on the shore in large wooden houses, plastered with plaster and painted like stone.
What's the problem? All the same, no decent Swedish ship can enter the swamp. We will fight the Swedes not in St. Petersburg where it is cold and wet, but in the steppes of Ukraine - near Poltava, where it is warm, dry and satisfying.
So, the Swedes were sorted out, but the eternal struggle with the planned hemorrhoids - floods remained:
At the Bolshoi Theater during a flood in St. Petersburg on November 7, 1824
Even now, from a practical point of view of acquiring real estate, it is useful to consider the plan for St. Petersburg, indicating the areas that are flooded at different levels of floods, including the maximum level corresponding to the flood of November 7, 1824:
It is easy to see that the fortress Nyenskans, which already existed on the Neva by the time of the founding of St. Petersburg, is located in a safe place on the mainland (clickable):
Fragment of the plan with Nyenschantz:
The question arises, why not develop the city from Nyenschantz towards the mainland? The city would be guaranteed to be forever free from floods and transport problems, being carried only 5-6 km to the east. But Peter-1, he is not looking for easy ways on the mainland, he is not looking for easy ways on the mainland, give him a swamp, floods, damp wind from the sea and other joys.
As if in continuation of the mockery of common sense a mysterious "Bronze Horseman" was erected in St. Petersburg, the main oddity of which is not even that Peter-1 without pants, caught by some miracle, sits on a rearing horse without stirrups and saddle. And the problem is not at all that it suspiciously resembles the composition of St. George the Victorious with a snake, but without a spear:
The main question is why the monument to Peter I was made without any seaport and naval-ship signs? According to legend, Peter-1 allegedly climbed into the swamp solely because of the "sea" port and fleet. Then where does the horses come in? Or is the image of Peter conceived so diverse: now a submarine is a naval commander in the steppes of Ukraine, now a horseman in a swamp, now a navigator, now a carpenter, now he got high in Amsterdam?
By the way, at first, horses had to be brought to the islands of St. Petersburg on specially equipped horse galleys, and of course, the whole Sennaya Square was planted. If someone else could clearly explain why they were needed there, if they were comfortable traveling on galleys and other boats? Is it fun to ride around the island on horseback or in a carriage? Islands are so gigantic that you can't cross without a horse?
Once in St. Petersburg there were from 101 to 142 islands, now their number has decreased to 33-42 (different data are everywhere):
In general, all the ebullient activity in St. Petersburg gives off an army marasmus, painting wooden houses like stone is worth something. They dig additional canals "a la Venice" on Vasilievsky Island and all sorts of others like Admiralteysky and Ligovsky, and then they are buried and vice versa begin to build bridges. There are many different kinds of bridges - floating and permanent, wooden and cast-iron, hanging, drawbridge, and transport problems still rise to their full height:
The fucking people who came in large numbers marked the drawbridge with the folk sign “ You Can't Pass. ”
Nevertheless, every sandpiper praises its swamp and will never go to the mainland. And then he complains that traffic jams and bridges in general have been lifted …
And all because "Peter's creation" is not originally a port city, but a city-Hemorrhoid Petersburg, "unknown animal":
Why did this strange city become the capital of a huge country, located on the edge of the middle of nowhere, and not closer to the center, for example, Nizhny Novgorod or Kazan? Such naive workers 'and peasants' questions about Petersburg can arise if you do not understand the true reasons for its creation. The logic of the founders becomes extremely clear if the classic question of economic geography is answered: "Why did the city arise in this particular place and at this time?"
PS A similar description of St. Petersburg: “Already by the time of the laying, Petersburg had not a single plus: neither as a city, nor as a fortress, nor as a port. Its military-strategic position was simply suicidal - the border with Sweden was at a distance of one day's crossing of the enemy army (in 1788, during the next "aggravation of the international situation", Gustav III would almost take advantage of this, and many years later the situation would repeat itself and become the cause of the Soviet -Finnish War).
The importance of St. Petersburg was also insignificant as a base for the navy - firstly, the water area freezes in winter, and, secondly, it is not difficult to lock the fleet in the Gulf of Finland (already at the time of Peter the Great, the Swedes did this; the British successfully carried out the Crimean War; in World War I and World War II - the Germans; as a result, the Baltic heroes sat out on the galleys and the only "outstanding" act in the history of the Baltic Fleet was their participation in the October coup).
The harbor has another unpleasant quality - the high desalination of the water, due to which the wood in it decays catastrophically quickly (now, perhaps, this circumstance does not really matter, but in the time of Peter, when the entire fleet was wooden, this caused more damage than enemy cores).
An unfortunate location on a patch, sandwiched among the sea, lakes and swamps, gives a potential enemy the opportunity to blockade the city not only from the sea, but also from land (which, again, was more than clearly demonstrated by the Germans in the Great Patriotic War).
And, here, "threatening the Swede" or anyone else from here is very inconvenient: within a radius of forty kilometers from St. Petersburg there are simply no conditions for the concentration and deployment of any large army formations.
And, finally, as the notorious "window to Europe" Petersburg did not function at all - they had not yet managed to hammer the first pile, when Russian troops recaptured Riga from the Swedes and all trade with the West went through the Baltic states (even today the main commodity flow goes by sea to Klaipeda, and further - by rail; it turns out that it is easier and cheaper for merchants to push cargo through three customs than to unload in St. Petersburg).
Yes, and how simply a settlement is not worth it: living on everything imported, unable to feed himself either by agriculture or by fishing; with a lousy climate. "A city not intended for life" - according to the tagged description of Tatyana Tolstoy … "quoted from the source" Where is the city from? " - there is still a lot of interesting things on the topic.
