Mashiculi. What a beautiful, ancient Russian word, isn't it? Here he directly smelled of something primordially Slavic, sublime, leading to the ancestors and Russia of the times of Rurik.
Just kidding. Firstly, the word is not entirely ancient, secondly, it is not at all Russian, and thirdly, no lyrics - the semantic content is purely utilitarian. It is a term that refers to the fortification, construction and defense of fortresses.
Mashicoulis - French machicoulis, derived from the medieval French mache-col, "to beat in the head." That is, these are hinged loopholes located in the middle and upper parts of the fortress towers and walls, designed for vertical shelling of the enemy approaching the wall with arrows, hand-held firearms, throwing stones, pouring resin and / or boiling water.
In traditional Russian serf architecture, the following terms were more accepted: "loopholes of oblique battle", "mounted battle", "mounted arrows", "varnitsa", "war battle".
It is believed that mashikuli appeared in serf architecture in Russia at the end of the 15th century, thanks to Italian architects. To what extent this is true, and how far it is not, it will no longer be possible to find out, but in the official history this opinion exists.
Promotional video:
Are you bored my young friend? Do you think this story will be boring, about some ancient architectural and defensive delights? Well, be patient a minute, it will be more interesting further.
So, specific literature on the topic tells us that “Mashikuli were used to eliminate the impenetrable (dead) space at the foot of the walls that arose when defensive fire was fired from the loopholes, since they made it possible to shell the area only at some distance from the foot of the walls. Mashikuli were arranged by creating overhangs at the parapet wall. At the same time, the parapet of the parapet was slightly moved forward from the plane of the wall."
In Russian serf architecture, the removal of the parapet was carried out by means of a general change in the shape of the masonry of the walls; loopholes were arranged in the forward part, which had a large angle of inclination. This is just our case. See the pictures above, and here it is:
Mashikuli in Russia were set up in the fortress walls of the Kremlin and monasteries with "medium" and "high" fighting, which is quite natural. Mashikuli of medium combat, located at a distance of two or more meters from each other, showed their effectiveness at heights from the ground level of 9 or more meters.
The location below this level was no longer effective, because:
- between the hinged loopholes, large impervious spaces were formed, allowing the enemy to group with impunity right under the wall, which is categorically unacceptable during defense.
- falling stones 15-25 cm in diameter under their own weight on a trained person in full combat gear from low altitudes is simply ineffective.
- Poured resin or boiling water from low heights does not give a sufficient fan of defeat.
Well enough theory - we will proceed from the fact that the reader understood what it is, what it is for, where and how it was located. Let's move on to what we are here, in fact, gathered for.
Here is:
Do you see the same thing as me? Mashikuli at a height of two meters? This is one of the walls of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra, the photo was taken in the spring of 2018, those who wish can double-check at any time.
How could this have happened? Well, let's first list all the possible versions that can explain what he saw, fit into the concept of the official scientific doctrine:
1. And this is how it was originally built.
2. The cultural layer is the same!
3. Probably fell asleep on purpose.
The thought stops at this, therefore, let's analyze what is available.
1. And this is how it was originally built.
Immediately no. For this contradicts the very idea, the basic concept, the direct purpose of the machine. Is it possible that someone could have made such a mistake while designing and confuse the heights of the location of the most important defensive nodes of the fortress?
And to what architect, on his own initiative, would he think of complicating his work with elements that were frankly useless? Didn't anyone accept his job and did not exercise any control over the construction?
So this version does not stand up to the slightest criticism.
2. The cultural layer.
Oh yeah! My favorite cultural layer, which they try to explain absolutely everything. Does a three-story building have one floor sticking out of the ground? The cultural layer is understandable! This, they say, before our ancestors were so wild that it did not even occur to them that it was possible to clean up around the buildings, and not litter the houses under the very roof.
And, in fairness, I will say that as a sober-minded person, the presence of a cultural layer, in principle, I do not deny. Over a hundred years, the road has been lifted in different layers by a meter, or even one and a half. Yes - the cultural layer.
Something was built on a vacant lot, before that for five hundred years, which was used as a city dump. Yes, also a cultural layer, no questions.
But in this case, in order to assume the presence of a cultural layer with a thickness of at least 7 meters (and this is how much is obtained with the most cursory analysis of the height at which the mashicules are located now and at what height they should be in accordance with their purpose) … Damn, for this assumption you have to be a very zombie person.
Even if we assume that it is possible (although it’s hard to believe, but let’s assume) to “accumulate” a cultural layer with a “pie” of 7 meters, then in this case we are not talking about some house or street. Not about utility buildings. And about the fortress! Core Defense!
Let me remind you that the Sergiev Posad Lavra has worked its way more than once as a real fortress. It withstood more than a year's sieges (Let's recall the time of troubles and its siege by the Poles in 1608-1610), assaults, shelling, attempts to undermine the wall, and so on.
So I don’t know how for anyone, but for the people responsible for the defense of the Lavra, the height of the fortress walls and defensive knots is not an empty phrase, but purely practical things. And to suppose that the walls of the Lavra were corny "fucked up" to such a height that its defenses began to suffer - that's forgive me. In principle, it cannot be. So the cultural layer in this case definitely goes by.
3. They probably fell asleep on purpose.
Let us suppose. But for this assumption, we need to answer the questions:
- what for?
- as?
- at whose expense?
- when?
I have no answer "why". Maybe you can suggest something.
With the answer to "how?" everything is simple - they brought the soil on carts. Yes, there were no dump trucks or excavators then, so only on carts.
To fill the outer wall of the Lavra by two-thirds (and up to this level it is filled exactly by two-thirds - for the remaining third from the side of the river, with the height of the walls and the location of the mashikuli everything is in order), millions of carts with soil will be required.
Such a large-scale construction and reconstruction could not but leave a trace in the documents. And they are not. It is just that "suddenly" the amount of soil materialized, for the transportation of which millions of carts and tens of thousands of people for earthworks would have been required.
There is evidence that the moat was filled up. I emphasize in red - they covered the moat. It was not the walls that did not radically change the landscape, but filled the moat. That in terms of the volume of displaced material, it can in no way explain what we see.
From this, the following question naturally asks "at whose expense the banquet?" For this whole event would have been incredibly expensive and would have lasted a very long time. That could not but leave a trace in the monastery books, in the annals, in the accounting records. And they are not there either.
So, about the price of fish and bread in the years 1560-1600, for example, we know how many who have underpaid taxes, we know, but about the construction of an object, in terms of labor costs commensurate with the construction of the Egyptian pyramids, nothing is known.
The answer to the question "when?" both simple and complex at the same time. Simple, because nothing is known about it. No such works were displayed. And it is difficult, because it is necessary to calculate - there was no photo-video in the period assumed by us.
During the siege of the Lavra by the troops of Ldezhmitry II in 1608-1610. everything was in order with the height of the walls and defense units. Recall that the Poles never took the Lavra, despite the prevalence in military strength, firepower, numbers and access to resources. So the events of interest to us occurred later.
But in the early 1900s, the Lavra was already in the form in which we see it today.
(Unfortunately, from the side we needed, the Lavra was practically not depicted in engravings, nor was it photographed)
So let's summarize the intermediate "total":
In the period from the mid-1600s to the beginning of the 1900s, it is not known where the mass of soil came from, which radically changed the landscape of Sergiev Posad and covered the walls of the Lavra so much that it was no longer possible to clear it with the forces and means available at that time. As a consequence of this event, a completely disrupted picture of the defensive capability up to this point is a completely combat fortress.
Someone will say about the flood. Someone about mudflow. Someone will shake the theory of nuclear war in 1812 (yes, there is one). So, I heard all these theories, I found some convincing, some ridiculous, but I do not consider myself an expert on any of them. But the fact is the fact - the walls of the Lavra are buried, in places at least 7 meters.
Decide to check - please! The Lavra is in place, its walls are, too, and the above-named mashikuli, which serve as beacons for our unpretentious study, have not disappeared from the walls.
Author: Sergey Kazinik